In the wake of anonymous allegations from advocate trainees and associates about sexual harassment within law firms and courtrooms, it has become clear that this is not a legal industry problem alone. These disclosures are made anonymously out of fear of retaliation.
The accounts reveal similar cycles of abuse of power that transcend firms and industries, job titles, and levels of seniority. Cumulatively, they paint a picture of a workplace culture that normalises inappropriate behaviour, reprimands victims for speaking up, and leaves survivors traumatised and shouldering the burden of proof.
Despite many professional bodies, including the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), having codes of conduct, disciplinary procedures, and ethics statements, these disclosures demonstrate a persistent gap between policy and practice. Survivors are often passed between offices, committees, or external bodies with no clear ownership of responsibility.
The more institutions push complaints away instead of receiving and processing them, the less trust there is in these processes and in the professions themselves. Survivors lose faith not only in systems of accountability, but in the field as a whole.
Victim blaming is commonly conceptualised as individual morality, but within professional bodies, it functions as an institutional practice. Survivors are questioned about their actions instead of being believed when they were harmed.
Attention is diverted to clothing, tone, ambition, alcohol use, or perceived consent, while the conduct of perpetrators is minimised or excused. This framing shifts responsibility away from those who abuse power and onto those who experience harm. Sexual violence is blamed on leading someone on, instead of taking one’s boundaries seriously. Shifting language away from believing victims lets institutions off the hook. No action is taken.
Language plays a critical role. Reports become “allegations” immediately, suggesting doubt before anyone investigates. Passive phrasing removes perpetrators from the narrative. Abuse is mutualised, minimised, or reframed as conflict.
This language deters people from reporting. When institutions don’t call out victim blaming, they're entrenching a culture where abuse is expected to happen and will continue to happen because nobody will face consequences and survivors are silenced.
Sexual harassment is about power
The accounts shared by pupils and associates illustrate exactly how power operates in professional environments. Sexual harassment isn’t about sex; it’s about power. Perpetrators are often seniors, more established, and gatekeepers who choose who gets mentored, who gets information, whose recommendation matters, and who earns a living.
For pupils and junior professionals, the risk is even higher. Poor pay, insecure contracts, and total dependence on supervisors mean silence is often the only way to survive. The threats are not always obviously alluded to, but they are understood. Report and your career dies. Stay silent and hope you make it through.
None of this is unique to law firms. Every profession that is built on hierarchy and prestige replicates these power structures. And because of those power structures, many survivors hear directly or indirectly that if they report, they’ll be labelled as troublemakers or unprofessional.
Institutions deal with these allegations by preserving the brand at all costs, even if it means silencing those who were assaulted. Investigations are slowed down, redirected, or quietly buried while victims are bounced around and complaints are quietly dropped. Perpetrators learn they’ll be protected by their position. And survivors learn that no one will help them. Silence is structurally reinforced.
Many turn to informal platforms, including social media, not to seek attention, but because formal avenues have failed them. This shift is often criticised as reckless or unfair, but it reflects institutional breakdown. In this vacuum, social media has become a place of last resort.
Not because it is ideal, but because it is accessible, visible, and harder to ignore. When official channels deflect blame or say nothing at all, the court of public opinion provides something most institutions can’t — validation.
Survivors speak out on social media to take back their narratives, document serial abusers and hold others accountable where institutions won’t. When we criticise survivors for speaking publicly about their experiences, we risk echoing the victim-blaming that silenced them in the first place. Rather than ask why a survivor chose to go public on social media, we should be asking why they were made to feel that was their only option. Social media didn’t create this crisis. A lack of action from institutions did.
Professional institutions need to take an active role in disrupting the language, narratives and behaviours that perpetuate blame onto survivors instead of perpetrators. That starts with us believing survivors, which means not entertaining stereotypes or assumptions about their decisions, character, or credibility. It means believing one thing; that the only person responsible is the perpetrator.
Professional bodies need to stop protecting abusers. When institutions brush misconduct under the rug because the alleged perpetrator holds power, is well-liked, or thought of as “too important” to challenge, they are communicating that someone's status is more valuable than other people's safety.
Institutions cannot pick and choose who they hold accountable. If they want to have any credibility moving forward, they will call out abuse when they see it, no matter the person's rank or reputation.
