UPDATE ... Nailing down questioning reptiles ... Painful extraction of information about overseas excursions by prez of the NSW Law Society ... Vacancies looming on the Tasmanian Supremes ... The Smage lives to fight another day as $1 billion Indonesian class action thrown out
Over many years Clayton Utz has been asked to respond to impertinent questions from the reptiles of the press.
Some of these engagements involved heroic feats of factual massaging.
Who can forgot the document "retention" debacle of the McCabe case, the internal investigation that followed (which saw two partners relocating), the Styles case and other sexually discriminatory distractions.
Building on this rich vein of experience the firm has come-up with a finely crafted media management strategy.
In an email to all and sundry within the global law shop, chief media muffin and corporate affairs manager, Lauren Scott warned of the dangers of being "too helpful" to reporters.
God knows what might happen if a partner shoots from the hip and tells it as it is.
Scott: message managementHere is what should be done. It it a model that could be embraced by doctors of spin throughout the corporate world …
"What to do when a journalist calls
Journalists work to tight deadlines so it is important that we respond to their enquiries promptly, efficiently and appropriately. You can help by following the protocol below.
If you receive a call from a journalist: Be polite, but do not respond to any questions seeking comment from the firm or an individual (including you) - you could be too helpful
Instead, ask for:
- the journalist's name,
- the name of their publication or program (radio/TV),
- a brief outline of what information they are seeking,
- the journalist's contact number,
- the journalist's deadline,
- the name of any person they specifically wanted to speak to.
Contact Corporate Affairs with that information. We will either respond on the firm's behalf or discuss with you whether it is appropriate to respond to the enquiry and the best way to go about it.
Lauren Scott, Corporate Affairs Manager, x6972, Mobile 0421 xxx xxx or Damian Marwood, Corporate Affairs Adviser x5415."
That should keep things nailed down.
* * *
How many NSW Law Society funded overseas trips did prez Stuart Westgarth take last year?
Not too hard a question for the society's flack Jacob O'Shaughnessy, who arrived recently after a stint as the PR man for the Australian Veterinary Association.
On February 2, O'Shaughnessy replied:
"As far as I’m aware travel is arranged on a needs must basis – but I’ll come back to you on that. Are you after absolute figures?"
Yes we are, and the destinations and purpose of the trips.
By February 8, the answer was:
"In response to your request for information, the President travelled overseas on Law Society business several times last year.
You will appreciate that one of the important roles of the President is to represent the Law Society at international events of significance to the Society."
Justinian replied on February 10:
"We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this straight forward request for information.
I have been told that the president of the LS last year took nine overseas trips.
I'll run with that number unless I hear from you an alternative number along with where and when the trips took place."
Later that day came some details:
"We are surprised by the suggestion that the President took nine trips last year
The information you have received is inaccurate. We can advise the president travelled overseas six times last year as follows:
- Opening of Law Term in Hong Kong, Jan 2011.
- 17th Commonwealth Law Conference 6-8 February, Hyderabad, India (speaker).
- Company Directors Conference 18-21 May 2011 Beijing, China, and then on to the Law Society of England and Wales.
- POLA Conference 13-16 June, Taipei (speaker).
- Opening of Law Term, London, Oct 2011.
- International Bar Association Conference, 30th October - 4th November, Dubai.
We do not propose to provide any other information as it is private. This is provided strictly to ensure accuracy in your information."
Mr O'Shaughnessy is a nice chap and I'm sure he's not entirely responsible for the over abundance of delicacy in handling the question.
Maybe, elements of the Clayton Utz media management policy came into play.
POLA, for those anxious to know, is an outfit called The Presidents of Law Associations in Asia. Yes, law society presidents have their own conference.
* * *
News from Van Diemen's Land arrived in my inbox. Maybe it's more in the category of speculation at this stage, but three Supreme Court jobs could soon be in contention.
Certainly, CJ Ewan Crawford has to go in April 2013, because he turns 72 and runs out of judicial time.
Hollywood Pete Underwood's five year stint as governor ends this April, and the tip is that Justice Shan Tennant will move into the pile in Lower Domain Road.
I'm assured she has enough cross-party support for the job.
Then there's Supremo, ex-Sydney boy, Alan Blow who has been put forward for the Federal Court.
Suspected frequenter of ladies lavatories and home brewer, Solicitor General Leigh Sealy, is believed not to be interested in a gig on the Supremes.
Local observers predict that after the pay increases take effect he'll be on $389,527, the same as the DPP and the same as a Supreme Court judge.
If that's the case he wouldn't need to move for the money.
Meanwhile, The Hobart Mercurial is absolutely steaming over the next round of pay rises for judges and other big wigs:
"Judicial salaries to surge", is the page one screamer.
Nearly $700,000 will go on topping up 24 judicial and senior law pay packets in the Apple Isle. That's an average increase of $29,000 each.
The Mercurial quoted unnamed "legal sources" who declared that the "pay boost is not in the public interest".
Apparently the same sort of money could fund 10 or 11 graduate nurses.
Is this some sort of payback from The Daily Rupert for an unfavorable libel decision?
* * *
It's been trouble and woe at Fairfax, what with Mrs Rhinoheart beating at the door and the NSW Supreme Court telling The Age to finger its sources.
It looked like the strife might be terminal if a hair-brained Indonesian case against the publishing house got up.
Following publication in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age of a WikiLeaks story that suggested the Indonesian president was corrupt, a group of worthies sued on behalf of the entire population of the country, claiming that the articles embarrassed and damaged the good name of Indonesian citizens.
The applicants wanted damages of $1 billion.
One can never be quite sure of the Indonesian judiciary, but fortunately a panel of judges though this one was a bit rich.
Peter Bartlett from Minters successfully organised the defence, which was run on the basis that this was a class action unknown to Indonesian law.
It was a difficult action to defend, what with foreign rules and language.
It was argued the class was too wide, there was no evidence that anyone had read the articles, the damages sought were ridiculous and the mechanism for the distribution of damages was vague.
Costs to Fairfax. Granny Herald and The Age breath again.
Justinian