Bonding at the bar

The problem of enforced conviviality at the NSW bar ... Judge Judy once again finds she’s not biased against Stephen Archer ... Martin Bryant's solicitor missing in action ... Recent sightings of legal luminaries ... Former CJ in cat fight ... From Justinian's archive, May 12, 2006 

Mark Tedeschi: convivial cocktails rebuffed

I see that president of the NSW grill Michael Slattery is bemoaning how impersonal and lacking in collegiality the bar has become - and by Jove he’s going to do something about it, such as getting people to bond over cricket and football games, lunches, dinners, and cocktails.

As an example of just how much excitement these events can generate I have to hand email correspondence from within the Crown prosecutors’ empire dealing with just this topic two years ago.

Mrs Crown’s senior man in NSW, Mark Tedeschi, sent the following electronic missive to senior prosecutors Wendy Robinson QC and Tim Hoyle SC.

The tone is something we can all enjoy:

“I would like to express my gross disappointment at the pathetic turnout of Crown prosecutors at the drinks for the Bar Association Executive on Friday night. Only 16 Crown Prosecutors were present to greet the 5 members of the Executive. Does that mean that the remaining 60 odd CPs in Sydney and Sydney West who didn’t come place no value on our recognition as full participating members of our professional association? Does that mean that those 60 don’t have any interest in getting together with their colleagues in a convivial (and cost free) atmosphere to discuss anything from their cases to who’s going to win the football? Does it mean that those 60 have no serious ambition to ever be appointed Senior Counsel? ...

My perception is that one of the reasons for the poor turnout at a function last Friday was that there are psychological divisions between the three floors of Crown Prosecutors in the city. My own view is that this is merely base tribalism of the kind that causes boys and girls in primary school to divide into ‘gangs’ ... I would like to get together with you both to discuss those divisions and to devise ways of alleviating them and creating an inclusive atmosphere in the Crown Prosecutors Chambers…”

In reply Wendy Robinson made her position pretty clear:

“Dear Mark - I deeply resent the implication of your outburst, that I am somehow your social secretary, or the social secretary to the 9th floor.

It follows that I am not interested in discussing with you or Hoyle how a group of deeply disaffected, busy professionals who are free white and 21 might be rounded up and forced to attend at short notice a social function of your own devising, apparently organized without advance consultation for a time most likely to be inconvenient to the vast majority. I personally do not believe that the Bar Association representatives would be pleased to hear you invite them with a view to Crown Prosecutors getting silk by drinking with them on Friday nights, and might well cease coming if advised that was your purpose ...”

Looks as though Slatts has his work cut out getting barristers to bond.

*  *  *

Archer: no bias under the "Spartan" test Judge Judy Gibson at the Sydney Dizzo has decided for a second time that she is not biased against red wine and cheese specialist and former adornment of the local Grill, Stephen Archer. 

Archer is suing the Newcastle Herald for saying that he made a separation agreement with his wife for the purpose of “avoiding his obligation to pay income tax”.

This is a rotten slur because, as we know, Archer has a formidable reputation when it comes to paying tax promptly.

He was bankrupted three times because of taxation misunderstandings and for his troubles he had his ticket cancelled by the Bar n’ Grill.

Late last year the newspaper sought to amend its defences with the supply of additional particulars of truth. The matter came before Gibson DCJ on November 8, 2005.

Archer subsequently claimed that by her conduct and decisions she disclosed continued animus “such that a compelling case of reasonable apprehension of bias can be made out”.

The way she conducted further proceedings on April 11 was also claimed to amount to further evidence if bias.

The plaintiff wanted Gibson off his case, even though a lot of the judge’s comments and decisions went Archer’s way.

Judge Judy has now rejected this latest assault on her impartiality. She said that the ordinary reasonable bystander would not conclude that there was “conduct sufficient to pass the ‘Spartan’ test”.

Last year Gibson rejected Archer’s earlier claims of bias. He claimed then that she exhibited “anger and coldness” towards him when he was briefed by her to appear in a custody case, Wade v Ferns. Years later she failed to return his greeting when he said “Hullo Judith”.

Archer asked Clive Evatt about this snub and it is alleged he said, “She hates your guts”.

The former barrister is seeking leave to appeal.

*   *   *

All of a sudden Tasmanian criminal lawyer John Avery is missing in action and his old partnership dismantled.

Avery’s great claim to fame was as Martin Bryant’s lawyer after the Port Arthur disaster.

Justice Blow of the Van Diemen’s Land Supreme Court sat till 8 pm one night at the beginning of the month to hear an application from the Law Society.

Avery's partner, Robert Blissenden, gave evidence for the society and David (Clockface) Gunson represented Avery, who did not contest the suspension.

Yesterday (May 16) Justice Underpants struck Avery off saying his conduct was “heinous in the extreme”.

The heart of the grief seems to be money from an estate the firm was handling. It seems that Avery decided to play teller to himself to the tune of $44,493.50. Now DPP Tim Ellis has been called in. 

Apart from his flamboyant ties and lairy socks, Avery was also most recently the subject of tut-tutting over his foray into the 10th anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre.

The Bulletin magazine had an interview with Avery as part of its “Making of a Monster” feature on the killings. He said that his client had told him that, “His only regret afterwards was that he didn’t shoot more”.

The magazine also carried a slice of transcript from taped solicitor-client conversations. All very iffy.

More importantly, the fate of Avery’s vast and colourful art collection is worrying Hobartians.

*   *   *

A few days after Justinian published Barry Lane’s recent article about Melbourne solicitor Joseph Guss, there was a fresh development.

Guss is going to the High Court to try and overturn a Vic Court of Appeal decision upholding an order lower down the chain of command cancelling his ticket to trade as a lawyer. As Barry pointed out, Guss appeals just about every decision against him.

Now Gussy’s son, Antony, is in strife - what with ASIC banning him for up to five years from being involved in the management of companies.

In fact, he was banned in September last year but the AAT reviewed the decision on an application from Antony.

The AAT (with Howard Olney in the chair) has upheld ASIC’s ban, which arose because Gussy jnr didn’t keep proper books and records for the family’s outdoor furniture business and he failed to prevent insolvent trading.

Gussy senior gave evidence for the lad, but oddly that didn’t seem to help.

*   *   *

There have been significant sightings of legal luminaries over the past week.

Mark (Refreshments) Richardson, until recently the CEO of the NSW Law Society, was seen in Elizabeth Street looking relaxed in jeans and a massive windcheater outside Fast & Fresh. He was on his mobile and the word “Melissa” was mentioned.

At David Jones food hall in Market Street the former chief justice Sir Gerry Brennan stopped in front of the fish counter, gazed at the snapper filets at $38.95 a kilo and moved on without buying.

What can all this mean?

*   *   *

Brennan: animals out

Speaking of Sir Gerry, I hear rumblings from Ranelagh, the high-rise apartment building in Darling Point that is home to Sir G. and Lady P. Brennan.

There are significant ructions over the dog and cat issue with strata proprietors dividing for and against having “companion animals” in the building.

A motion was passed recently banning beasts from occupancy and now anxious residents are wondering how they will cope without their beloved hounds and pusses.

It is sad to have to report that Sir Gerard was part of the anti-animals push.