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Gruzman denied telling the client that unless a letter containing the criticism was withdrawn, he would be "too sick to continue".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Gould said in a statutory declaration that Gruzman snr told him on the phone that if the letter was not withdrawn, he would be too sick to contemplate continuing with the case.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.