Silent investor

NSW bar mum about its money ... Has it got ethical investments? ... Men are not necessary as Law Society elections send city solicitors into the reject bin ... Warnings for NT barristers not to be "cowards" prompts snippy reactions 

Bar's investments under challenge

Barrister Michele Fraser from Sydney's Freddy Jordan Chambers fired off a missive to Anne Healey, who sat on the bar's finance investment and audit committee. 

She raised two hot issues. 

• Why is the bar readers course so expensive? This financial year revenue increased from $484,600 to $523,100, which Ms Fraser says is about $5,500 for each of the 96 readers. She asked how is the fee determined and "are we sure we are not exploiting a convenient monopoly". Further, is the availability of fee relief notified to readers, and how many received fee relief last year? 

• The bar association has increased the size of its investments over the past few years and now has between $4 million and $5 million in term deposits, fixed interest securities, shares and managed funds. Can the finance investment and audit committee provide a breakdown of the investments in each category? Also, "As a member I would be concerned if the bar association held shares in fossil fuel industries ..." 

She received a reply from bar treasure and now ex-treasurer, Michael McHugh. He explained that the readers' course fee covers external costs but, even so, the programme actually runs at a loss. 

He added that the president has the discretion to provide fee relief, it's a discretion that must be exercised with caution ... 

"A reader who has difficulties meeting the costs of the course would be unlikely to be in a position to meet subsequent practice costs such as floor fees." 

As to the bar's investments, the message was: 

"Both the committee and the bar council have considered the issue of the ethical investment of the association reserves and will continue to monitor the situation in this regard." 

See correspondence ... 

NSW bar readers fees

 

NSW bar defends fees

 

Election upset 

NSW Law Society elections: not enough voting

The NSW Law Society elections results continue to bamboozle sage political observers. 

The membership of the society still is predominately white, male, city solicitors, yet apart from the "large firm member", Gary Ulman from Minters, none of this year's male candidates with a city practice won a seat around the council table.

The only other male candidates who were elected were Terence Stern, an existing suburban councillor who ran unopposed, and country member Andrew Boog from Dubbo. 

You had a better chance of winning if you were a woman or from the bush, or both.

The usual rotation is for seven of the 21 councillors to retire or seek reelection each year, so successful candidates have three years terms. There are 27,000 solicitors in NSW of which 24,000 are members of the NSW Law Society.

Incredibly, one in seven of the members actually vote, even though no one actually has to leave their desk to deliver a ballot paper. Government lawyers tend not to vote because in most instances the government won't pay Law Soc membership fees. 

The city males who went down in a heap were Stephen Bell (prez of the City of Sydney Law Society); Susai Benjamin (Office of State Revenue), Con Ktenas (another government member), Hugh Macken (city solicitor), his brother Paul Macken (city) and Gregory Ross (from Eakin McCaffery Cox in the city).

All losers in a constituency dominated by testicled city solicitors. 

Apart from the two unopposed males (Ulman and Stern), the successful candidates were women: Annmarie Lumsden (Legal Aid), Blanka Moss (general counsel for Schlinder Lifts), Pam Suttor (city) and Jodie Thurgoood (bush). 

Looks like the blokey candidates will need a preference whisperer next time around.

Cowards' castle 

John Lawrence: stirring farewell speech

The Northern Territory Bar Association annual dinner last month turned out to be a starry, starry night. 

In-demand Sydney brief Arthur Moses flew to Darwin to give the after-dinner speech, in which he talked about the dangers of magistrates who make political statements, the rule of law and how it can be undermined too readily. 

Outgoing NT bar prez John Lawrence in his farewell oration mentioned the word "cowards", in the context of the bar needing to stand up for itself and its independence and, importantly, not to yield to the government on matters of principle.  

Some seemed to take the remark personally, including attorney general John Elferink, and approached Lawrence afterwards to ask whether he was referring specifically to them.

Was it sensitivity or guilt that made them so edgy?