Porn-exposing lawyer also a steward and adjudicator with Racing Integrity Board

[Murray Fish]

 

Damian Botherway (inset) was suspended from practising as a lawyer last year. He also held a position at the Racing Integrity Board.

The recently named former law boss who repeatedly exposed his female staff to porn on his computer has been working as an adjudicator and steward at the Racing Integrity Board, Stuff can reveal.

Damian Botherway - the former principal of a Waikato-based boutique commercial law firm and a premier division rugby union referee - was named on Monday as the lawyer who was suspended from practising for three months by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal in December.

Botherway’s lawyer, Briar Webster, confirmed to Stuff he had abandoned his appeal for permanent name suppression and had no comment to make.

On Saturday, Botherway was named in a Racing Integrity Board (RIB) report as one of the stewards for the Champions Day at Ellerslie. Documents on the RIB website indicate Botherway has also been an adjudicator.

Stipendiary stewards are officials who ensure the integrity, safety , animal welfare standards and fairness of racing. They investigate, detect and report breaches of rules. Adjudicators are independent, similar to a judge and after hearing evidence can rule whether charges are proved, dismissed and what fines or suspensions are made.

Damian Botherway was listed as one of the stewards for the Auckland Thoroughbred Racing at Ellerslie on Saturday. Photo: Supplied

Stuff asked the board a number of questions. A spokesperson responded saying the RIB only became aware of the tribunal decision on Monday.

“We take this matter seriously and acted immediately. We are engaging with Mr Botherway regarding the Tribunal’s decision and will determine any appropriate next steps,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Got a tip for us to investigate?
Email us securely at investigations@stuffdigital.co.nz

contact our team

The lawyers tribunal labelled Botherway’s behaviour “egregious” and said staff members at his firm had witnessed snippets of porn on his computer screen several times a day since 2016.

 

“Although he ‘clicked out’ of objectionable internet sites when staff entered his office room, they were confronted with snippets and were acutely aware of his interest in sexualised objectification of women.

“Consequently, they felt horror, shock, disgust, discomfort, embarrassment, and shame. Their work environment was thus rendered toxic and emotionally unsafe,” the decision said.

Damian Botherway (inset) is a lawyer and rugby referee. Photo: Supplied

 

Botherway was a sole legal practice employer and had no policy or processes about raising this type of behaviour.

When the firm moved to a new office and his computer screen faced the door, staff were immediately exposed to the explicit material.

“He resisted suggestions that he rearrange his room, so his screen was not visible on entry. Although (and because) he ‘clicked off’ images when, or soon after, staff entered, we cannot imagine that he could not have been aware of the situation. In our view, to claim otherwise amounts to wilful blindness,” the tribunal said.

It wasn’t until November 2022 when a junior staff member raised concerns with another more senior employee that Botherway was confronted.

He said he had an addiction and promised to get help. But he broke his promise two months later when another employee saw an explicit image on his screen. He initially denied it when confronted, and only accepted the employee was correct when another staffer complained about the same issue the following month.

Contact the reporter: catrin.owen@stuffdigital.co.nz

At the hearing, Botherway admitted the charge of misconduct

“We find that, because all the staff members were female and he, their employer, male, both their distress and their hesitance in confronting him are readily explicable.”

The tribunal said there was a power imbalance and the staff were anxious about effects on their jobs.

“[The lawyer’s] insensitivity and lack of thought about the effect his conduct would produce in his employees was remarkably obtuse. That he suffered from a compulsion to engage in the conduct does not mean he was incapable of realising his viewing was repeatedly on show to his employees.”

After the early 2023 complaints, Botherway started working from home and by late April his employees had left and complained to the New Zealand Law Society Complaints Service.

Botherway’s therapist said the misconduct was “born from an addiction” and depression at the time.

“Although it is little comfort to his employees, we accept that he was not in a healthy frame of mind during the period. We applaud his having taken steps to address it and are pleased to learn of the progress he has made,” the tribunal said.

In the end, the tribunal suspended Botherway from practising for three months, imposed a censure and banned him from practising on his own account, whether in a partnership or otherwise, until authorised. (His suspension expired on March 6.)

He further has to pay $5000 each to the two employees who complained and costs of $20,500.

[hesi]

Not a good look for Damian Botherway who was adjudicating at Ellerslie on Saturday, being a member of an 'integrity' board

[Murray Fish]

the possible answer to the delays is now in.....  distracted watching sport else where...

 

[Murray Fish]

1 minute ago, hesi said:

Not a good look for Damian Botherway who was adjudicating at Ellerslie on Saturday, being a member of an 'integrity' board

what a wanker!!!!!

 

[Freda]

1 hour ago, Murray Fish said:

what a wanker!!!!!

 

Yes, probably. 

[Chief Stipe]

Of course perspective will go completely out the window here.

The facts:

Lawyer running a sole practice - that is one lawyer.

Employs a number of legal staff and front office - all female.  No HR department or HR processes and procedures in place.  

Lawyer starts watching porn periodically on his computer 2016.  Staff entering room sometimes catch snippets of porn as he switches between browser tabs.

2022 firm moves to new offices.  Lawyers screen is more visible due to new room layout.

November 2022 - first complaint is lodged by junior staff member to senior staff member.  Lawyer confronted with complaint.  He promises to address the issue.  No more complaints until 2 months later.  Post those complaints in April 2023 Lawyer starts working from home.

Employee relationship broken and they leave April 2023.  They then lodge a complaint with the NZ Law Society.

Hearing held in November 2025.  Lawyer has name suppression. 

Lawyer suspended by Law Society for 3 months (suspension ends March 6 2026).  Ordered to pay ex-staff $5,000 each and $20k in Law Society costs.

Initially indicated he would appeal and later decided not to.  Name suppression lifted on Monday 8 March 2026.

Article published in mainstream media - racing particpant (anti?) tips off journalist.  Journalist now has 5 headline articles since case was first notified.

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, Freda said:

Yes, probably. 

Yes, even nuns....

[Huey]

Harmless, compared to what a few got away with in recent times. 

[Chief Stipe]

No doubt the industry hypocrites will eviscerate and immolate him for something that was done nearly 4 years ago and hold him to account to a level higher than the Law Society.

BTW @curious what "charges" did he plead guilty to?  My understanding it was a Law Society complaint not a criminal or civil charge.

[curious]

15 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

BTW @curious what "charges" did he plead guilty to?  My understanding it was a Law Society complaint not a criminal or civil charge.

Reportedly:

Mr Botherway admitted the charge and described his own conduct as “egregious.”

Yes, the case was heard by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.

Do you think the RIB should/would have hired him with that record, had they known?

At least they say they have taken immediate action.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by curious

[Chief Stipe]

1 hour ago, curious said:

Reportedly:

Mr Botherway admitted the charge and described his own conduct as “egregious.”

Yes, the case was heard by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.

Do you think the RIB should/would have hired him with that record, had they known?

At least they say they have taken immediate action.

 

Cherry picking again.  What was the "charge"?  The whole charge.

[hesi]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Of course perspective will go completely out the window here.

The facts:

Lawyer running a sole practice - that is one lawyer.

Employs a number of legal staff and front office - all female.  No HR department or HR processes and procedures in place.  

Lawyer starts watching porn periodically on his computer 2016.  Staff entering room sometimes catch snippets of porn as he switches between browser tabs.

2022 firm moves to new offices.  Lawyers screen is more visible due to new room layout.

November 2022 - first complaint is lodged by junior staff member to senior staff member.  Lawyer confronted with complaint.  He promises to address the issue.  No more complaints until 2 months later.  Post those complaints in April 2023 Lawyer starts working from home.

Employee relationship broken and they leave April 2023.  They then lodge a complaint with the NZ Law Society.

Hearing held in November 2025.  Lawyer has name suppression. 

Lawyer suspended by Law Society for 3 months (suspension ends March 6 2026).  Ordered to pay ex-staff $5,000 each and $20k in Law Society costs.

Initially indicated he would appeal and later decided not to.  Name suppression lifted on Monday 8 March 2026.

Article published in mainstream media - racing particpant (anti?) tips off journalist.  Journalist now has 5 headline articles since case was first notified.

Got to look sideways at your comments CS.  Regardless of what he has done, which is admitted, he has set out to deceive and be dishonest in covering up his indiscretion.  Hardly the qualities expected of someone in a position passing judgment on other people's indiscretions.  RIB has also been poor in not checking him out, although I presume he did not disclose this at any stage during the recruitment process.  Of course he didn't, he was trying to get permanent name suppression.

I'm sure any female jockey's knowing of his past would have felt very uncomfortable being interviewed by him had the occasion arisen.

[curious]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

Cherry picking again.  What was the "charge"?  The whole charge.

Misconduct. Read it yourself. https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2025-NZLCDT-49-National-Standards-Committee-1-v-Botherway.pdf

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, hesi said:

Regardless of what he has done, which is admitted, he has set out to deceive and be dishonest in covering up his indiscretion. 

What was the indiscretion?

Who did he cover up to?

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, curious said:

Misconduct. Read it yourself. 

No you profess to be the expert on these things you tell us all.

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, hesi said:

I'm sure any female jockey's knowing of his past would have felt very uncomfortable being interviewed by him had the occasion arisen.

You are passing judgement on the more salacious aspects of this case and drawing long bows.

I'll ask again what was his biggest indiscretion?

[Newmarket]

Who cares, its only porn. I bet Chief has even stroked the lizard at some time over the years….