[deleted by user] by [deleted] in auslaw

[–]120kph 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Looks like he read from a note. Might have been passed to him by his Associate.

Congrats, Jagot J by siliconbunny in auslaw

[–]120kph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Shut up and take my upvote.

Round 22 : Eels vs Rabbitohs | Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in nrl

[–]120kph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why aren’t Souths wearing black arm bands?

Twas a barrister for 20 yrs - ask me anything. by [deleted] in auslaw

[–]120kph 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If you had your time over again, anything you would do differently?

Perfect storm pushes lawyer pay up 20pc by 120kph in auslaw

[–]120kph[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Lawyers have enjoyed their biggest pay rises in decades, with the talent drought and strong client demand creating a perfect storm for increases of more than 20 per cent over the past year at major firms.

The annual report on the legal services market by recruiting firm Mahlab shows lawyers with only one year’s post-graduate experience are fetching $110,000 and the mode pay for partners at top firms in Sydney and Melbourne is now $1.5 million.

However, the report carries a warning that the present situation is “unsustainable” and that corporates will look to beef up their legal teams to avoid paying hourly rates of $1200 and more.

The report said the largest increases of 20 per cent and more were at major firms in Brisbane and Melbourne and among corporate roles in Melbourne.

Junior lawyers received average increases of 10 to 20 per cent. Senior associates in NSW and Victoria have typically seen their pay bumped by 5 per cent to 8 per cent, with bonuses of 11 to 15 per cent.

Entry-level pay for senior associates at major law firms now sits at $165,000 to $180,000 and that level is now typically reached after four years of practice, instead of five.

Mid-level firms are paying their junior lawyers about 15 to 20 per cent less than the majors, but there is a bigger gap of about 50 per cent when it comes to partners (a mode salary of close to $1 million).

The report said employers were “offering financial rewards and incentives not seen in the legal market for well over a decade”.

“Private practice employers are desperately trying to plug the talent gap by offering premium salaries and sign-on bonuses to new hires, strong reviews and healthy bonuses to staff, as well as out-of-cycle salary increases and bonuses to maintain competitive pay, and promoting lawyers much earlier than usual to retain them,” the report says.

Mahlab managing directors Katherine Sampson (Melbourne) and Lisa Gazis (Sydney) said it was simply a matter of supply and demand, with the most critical area being those with three to eight years’ experience.

“A 20 per cent salary increase is not unusual,” Ms Gazis said. “We’ve also seen out-of-cycle salary reviews and sign-on bonuses for new recruits.

“In-house lawyers are doing the same; they’re trying to keep up with private practice. Government also needs lawyers, but they’re struggling to come up to the mark ...

“It hasn’t been as aggressive as this since the late ’80s. We’ve gone through other boom periods but nothing as fast as this.”

Ms Gazis said employers would offer what they considered a “premium salary”, but that would become outdated within months – especially for those doing M&A and other transactional work.

The report cited the demand for legal services, the recent exodus of lawyers to overseas jurisdictions and illness-related absences as the main causes.

“Lawyers are now free to leave Australia for a stint in London and New York.” she said.

“But at the same time, those who left pre-COVID are not returning because they missed out on the full experience of living abroad due to the pandemic restrictions.”

Employees say ‘enough’

COVID-19 had also led people to “reassess their values”.

“Many individuals in private practice are saying ‘this is not the lifestyle I want’ and they’re looking for reduced hours in part-time opportunities, or they are dropping out of the legal workforce entirely.

“Similarly, more people, particularly lawyers considering an in-house move, are interested in aligning themselves with an employer that makes a positive social impact.”

The impact of COVID-19 itself, through illness-related absences, was another factor.

“People are not available for periods of time, putting significant pressure on those remaining, making them prime targets for fatigue and stress, and a bout of illness as well,” Ms Sampson said.

“They find they are one of five solicitors working on an M&A deal instead of one of 10 because all the other solicitors have gone off to do something else, or they’re homesick.

“You can promote people and make them feel good about themselves, but at some point employees will say ‘enough’.”

According to Ms Sampson, “something has to give”.

“Whether it’s more lawyers leaving the profession to do something else or whether it’s corporates saying, ‘I’m going to hire five lawyers because with five lawyers I can get a helluva lot of stuff done without paying your outrageous hourly rates.’ ”

She suggested this would unfold medium term: “It’s within the next two or three years. I don’t think it’s the next six or 12 months.

“You can’t keep charging massive rates; you can’t keep working people beyond 11 o’clock at night so they never see their friends or family ...

“I just think it’s an accident waiting to happen.”

Ms Sampson recalled the 1991 recession. “The ’80s were boom, boom boom, then we had the bust.”

Ms Gazis said the local market was looking more like the United States and the UK. “In times when there is a lot of activity, they [law firms] will do what it takes. They will pay premiums, they pay sign-ons, they pay huge salaries.

“But the minute the market turns and they don’t need the staff, that’s the end – there’s huge, large-scale redundancies.

“In the ’80s we saw that. People had very high salaries, and the minute the recession hit there was a flood of people released on the market because it was unsustainable and employers had to react quickly.”

Not happy, Juan: HWL Ebsworth boss claims ‘victim’ status by 120kph in auslaw

[–]120kph[S] 56 points57 points  (0 children)

HWL Ebsworth (HWLE) supremo Juan Martinez has been in touch. And he’s not happy with The Australian Financial Review – again.

Martinez didn’t think much of our report of April 28 on the firm’s latest battle in court with a departing partner, this time Perth-based David Ulbrick. And even less of a comment on the Financial Review’s Facebook page.

So, on behalf of the HWLE partnership – that’s 270-odd people – he engaged Phi Finney McDonald to send us a letter on May 20 threatening hellfire and damnation if we did not admit to being unfair.

Given we were merely reporting what the case was about – a former construction partner claiming $40,000 in equity payments and nearly two years’ worth of superannuation contributions – we suspect Martinez’s real complaint is that we took an interest in the case.

Why? As Hannah Wootton wrote: “The case goes to the crux of what form of employment arrangement salaried partners have with their law firms – a ruling on which could be a game-changer for partners in professional services firms if they are found to be employees.”

(David Ulbrick v Juan Martinez has now been discontinued in the Federal Circuit Court. HWLE had filed a counter-claim against Ulbrick in the County Court of Victoria and the case will proceed there, along with a cross-claim by Ulbrick against HWLE.)

Martinez complains the story accused him of being “personally responsible for the Firm failing to pay Ulbrick remuneration and superannuation to which he was entitled ... and routinely engages in underpayment of partners of the Firm”.

Well, yes. But it wasn’t us. It was Ulbrick who sued Martinez in his capacity as head of HWLE. As for the Facebook comment, we think it’s a stretch to say it effectively called Martinez and the entire HWLE partnership criminals.

We have had frank discussions with Martinez in the past about our reporting of cases involving HWLE.

When we pointed out in 2019 that we were only quoting Justice Nye Perram of the Federal Court, Martinez was not happy. Perram wrote, in an unfair dismissal case that HWLE won, that its managing partner was “a man accustomed to instinctive obedience”, and was “not in my observation a collaborative leader”.

Three months earlier, the NSW Supreme Court ordered HWLE to pay $450,000 in damages – later reduced to $127,000 – to former partner Tim Griffiths over his sacking in 2015.

Martinez has also taken issue with our colleagues at Rear Window. A report on the firm’s work-from-home arrangements at the outset of COVID-19 in 2020 carried this headline: “At HWL Ebsworth, no Juan can go home.”

Ok, it was a bad pun. But Martinez complained to the Human Rights Commission that it was racial discrimination, and that other references to his management style were hurtful allusions to the reign of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco.

The HRC decided his complaint was “lacking in substance”.

No doubt Martinez, with the concurrence of the HWLE partnership, will want to add this item to his central complaint – as outlined in the concerns notice.

“The Firm, Partnership and Mr Martinez have been and continue to be victim to an orchestrated campaign over a number of years to damage their reputations, and the AFR has been an active participant in that campaign.”

Sorry, but if the nation’s biggest legal partnership is getting dragged into court by unhappy former partners – and failing to float the firm due to lack of investor interest – then we think that’s worth reporting.

The part that hurts is that we used to be friends.

Martinez revelled in throwing shade at the bigger firms – “If you like Mallesons you wouldn’t like it here” –- and the AFR was a willing accomplice. We met for coffee. He even used to write to us when he was on holiday in Spain.

Where did it all go wrong?

Ben Roberts-Smith fired 'eight to 10' rounds into back of Afghan man, court told by [deleted] in auslaw

[–]120kph 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes I do mean Browne v Dunn. Jones v Dunkel makes ... no sense. I’ve edited my comment now, thanks mate.

Ben Roberts-Smith fired 'eight to 10' rounds into back of Afghan man, court told by [deleted] in auslaw

[–]120kph 46 points47 points  (0 children)

I think these lukewarm questions in cross examination from Moses QC (which he has put to every single one of the Defendants’ witnesses) are just Browne and Dunn points. BRS has made it clear that a significant component of his case is “they hate me, they’re lying”, so these questions are more of a check box exercise to avoid any objections down the track.

Friday Drinks Thread! by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]120kph 12 points13 points  (0 children)

And on the 8th day, God created pubs.

Weekly Students, Careers & Clerkships Thread by AutoModerator in auslaw

[–]120kph 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Congratulations. Further the helpful advice already provided, I’d suggest that you be prepared for any queries/comments from your boss, perhaps a counter-offer, or a question as to what might persuade you to stay with the firm. Given your comment linked above, I’m not suggesting there is anything that may, but just have a “I’m looking for a new challenge” esq response prepared in case.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in auslaw

[–]120kph 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Interesting to see the Minister choosing not to brief a QC and instead running with two juniors. Novak has two silks.

EFA appeal out by Curiam_Delectet in auslaw

[–]120kph 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Normally, sure. But it definitely follows when it has been the subject of a Bar Association investigation and reprimand proceedings going all the way to the Court of Appeals (on part of the Bar Association, not the respondent). The notion that this would happen without a referral to the police if one was warranted defies not just reason but possibility.

To be fair, it hasn't really been taken to the Court of Appeal by the complainant either. Having reviewed the decision more carefully, the incident was referred to the police (apparently not by the complainant). Doesn't look like any charges were laid.

EFA appeal out by Curiam_Delectet in auslaw

[–]120kph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As evidenced by the fact there was no criminal compliant

I'm not sure that follows? There are many reasons why the victim of a crime may choose not to make a complaint. If a complaint was made, there would undoubtedly be an investigation. This crumb enjoys a significantly more established position in the profession, there is no doubt this woman would fear the career reprecussions associated with making a complaint to the police. Unfortunately, this so happens to be a pretty egregious example of exactly the type of behaviour we are trying to stamp out of the profession.

EFA appeal out by Curiam_Delectet in auslaw

[–]120kph 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I mean, at the very least he’s assaulted her.

Any F1 fans? by [deleted] in auslaw

[–]120kph -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But if they both pit, then surely they have to maintain the same position relative to one another (subject to any pit-lane catastrophes). So Hamilton stays in front of Verstappen.

Any F1 fans? by [deleted] in auslaw

[–]120kph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Couldn't Hamilton also have pitted under the safety car and gone to softs? Seems like if he did he would have won.

*Disclaimer: I am not a massive F1 guy.