Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Sofronoff stripped bare ... Deceit ... Betrayal ... Drumgold hung out to dry as a result of Sofronoff-Albrechtsen information "tryst" ... Latest derailment of conspiracies about the prosecution of manosphere darling, Bruce Lehrmann ... Derangement syndrome ... Sofronoff's "serious corruption" ... Devastation among devoted Banana Benders ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society


Bag lady ... Don't call the results until the fat lady sings … Senator's criminal record hidden from view … Inspiration from our B-grade business leaders … Forget the sexual harassment, Dicey Heydon is coming out of the deep freeze ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Capital crimes ... Dangerous words likely to be scrubbed from the Trump era lexicon ... Musk and his techie vandals ... The shredder going full blast at the FBI ... Stolen national security documents sent back to Mar-a-Lago ... Cabinet clown show ... White supremacy unleashed ... Consumer protection prosecutions dropped ... Lawyers and law firms threatened ... Roger Fitch from Washington ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Letter from London ... Holiday season ... Mother's Day, Lent, Chocolate ... Publisher wants money from Russell Brand for unpublished books ... Paralegal accessed forbidden documents to qualify for legal training contract ... Birthday card payout ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"True to form, the ACT corruption watchdog has put itself at the centre of perceptions of bias with a finding against eminent former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC that serves only to debase the definition of serious corrupt conduct."

The Australian with its unique perspective on "bias" ... March 22, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Judgment for sale ... Melbourne University Publishing's decision to produce Justice Lee's Lehrmann judgment as a commercial product is not without its problems ... The omnishambles continues ... Melbourne lawyer Nilay B. Patel explains ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Defamation and other misadventures ... So sexy, said the actress of the Chief Justice ... Daphnis dunks women in hot water ... Another (male) judge frocks-up ... Inside Madge's mouth ... Stephen Archer defamed ... David Levine strangles more English ... Justice Dean Mildren "the idiot" ... From Justinian's archive, April 22, 2004 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Judge bounces lawyer tax scheme fight | Main | Master of the rope »
Saturday
Jan012000

Gruzman never too sick

Father and son team ... Gruzman snr cleared by stipes of threat to withdraw from case over insult to his son and junior ... Heinous accusation of barrister attending client's premises without instructing solicitor ... Row over fees

From Justinian, March 1994

The Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal, by majority, has dismissed complaints of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct against famous Sydney silk Laurie Gruzman.

The tribunal's chairman, Douglas Staff QC and Hal Sperling QC were in the majority. Lay member Denis Mahon dissented, but the tribunal's judgment gave no clue as to his reasoning.

The NSW bar council had referred a complaint that Gruzman had threatened to withdraw his service during a major Federal Court hearing because his client criticised the performance of his son, Adrian, who was acting as his junior.

Gruzman denied telling the client that unless a letter containing the criticism was withdrawn, he would be "too sick to continue".

In 1988 Gruzman was senior counsel for Amann Aviation, which was engaged in a long and complex claim against the Commonwealth for terminating the Amann Coastwatch contract.

In November 1988 Vanda Gould, chairman of Continental Venture Capital Ltd (CVC) which controlled Amann, wrote to the solicitor instructing Gruzman, Stephen Lancken, seeking redress for what he said was "the absence of any evidence of constructive work" by Adrian Gruzman.

Gould said in a statutory declaration that Gruzman snr told him on the phone that if the letter was not withdrawn, he would be too sick to contemplate continuing with the case. After that Gould instructed Lancken to disregard the letter.

A solicitor in the case, Malcolm Gracie, gave evidence that he was in Gruzman's chambers when Gruzman had the phone conversation with Gould.

According to this evidence Gruzman told Gould: "You can't make allegations like that against a barrister and then expect them to be ignored."

Gruzman had used the words "sick" or "sickening", but Gracie had not understood Gruzman to be threatening to withdraw from the case.

A director of CVC, Joseph Shlegeris, gave evidence that Guzman had told him that although the letter made him feel sick, he was not threatening to walk out of the case.

The tribunal majority said the complaint about the threat was supported only by Gould's evidence, but "having regard to the view we have formed of Gould's credibility, we have no hesitation in finding that the threat alleged by Gould was not made".

The majority also dismissed a complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct which alleged that Gruzman, without justification, had conferred with Gould at the CVC offices and in the absence of his instructing solicitor.

Gruzman said he and young Adrian had gone to the offices to inspect documents because his chambers were already cluttered with papers associated with the case.

Gould claimed Gruzman snr told him during the visit that he would "no longer be willing to provide my full attention and effort to the case unless the issue of my fees for the American trip is resolved to my satisfaction".

The majority found there was evidence from a secretary at CVC that the Gruzmans had worked on the documents until well into the night.

"The imputation that the visit to the client's offices was contrived in order to have a private conversation with Gould is also inconsistent with the evidence that Gould and Gruzman snr were alone from time to time in chambers and ... spoke frequently on the telephone."

These and other aspects of Gould's evidence "leaves us without confidence in his testimony".

Counsel for the bar association, Chester Porter QC, had said that any breach of the rules relating to Gruzman's attendance at the conference without an instructing solicitor would be pertinent where it had occurred in conjunction with having arranged the visit for the alleged ulterior purpose.

The majority said that breach of the rules was not the gravamen of Gould's complaint in relation to the episode and therefore did not arise.

They were satisfied Gruzman had done nothing that was in any way untoward.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.