Comments on: Julie Bishop on her own legal past: the interview with a partner

By: klewso

klewso — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 05:37:39 +0000

I’ll bet you Sir Terry Lewis was too?

By: Matthew of Canberra

Matthew of Canberra — Tue, 04 Dec 2012 04:16:04 +0000

“All I can say is I am proud of my legal career”

So was Johnnie Cochran

By: ulysses butterfly

ulysses butterfly — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:55:29 +0000

To get a bit researchy and primary sources on you Charlie, and dear readers:

Refer NSW Solicitor’s Rules at http://www.lawsociety.com.au/idc/groups/public/documents/internetcostguidebook/026327.pdf

Or here without the whole pdf http://www.lawsociety.com.au/ForSolictors/professionalstandards/Ruleslegislation/SolicitorsRules/027105

Go to the prefacing paragraph under the title “Relations with clients Rules 1-16 / Statement of Principle for Rules 1-16”

then this ….

“Practitioners should serve their clients competently and diligently. They should be acutely aware of the fiduciary nature of the relationship with their clients, and always deal with their clients fairly, free of the influence of any interest which may conflict with a client’s best interests.”

Opinions may differ as to whether it is really possible to give competent and diligent advice when judgment is clouded by close personal relationships affecting objectivity. Many will say, of course I was objective, and other’s would say that’s the essence of a blind spot for those near and dear.

In the absence of evidence of illegality by Bishop, or the PM, in giving legal advice to a person in a close relationship, then I suggest it’s probably a breach of professional ethics. Did everyone do it back in the day? Possibly. I don’t know. One presumes the 1995 Solicitors Rules in NSW came into force to help educate and clarify expectations of practitioners at least in that jurisdiction, which don’t apply to Vic and WA specifically. Though the underlying principles probably do.

By: ulysses butterfly

ulysses butterfly — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:37:26 +0000

Charlie, I refer to this “I’m not saying that lawyers cannot have a relationship with someone to whom they provide legal advice,…”

I’m saying, if that quote is correct, she is probably wrong. The better view, while arguable, is that fiduciary duty requires objectivity, which is absent in a relationship (particularly an intimate one, or immediate family).

So no I was not being “sloppy”. Apology accepted.

By: Karen

Karen — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 03:33:44 +0000

@ AR #19 - don’t tar us all with that ‘bad lawyer’ brush, my dear. There are many of us who work committedly, if not passionately, in the criminal, welfare and community sectors for relatively modest incomes, on behalf of disenfranchised people and/or victims who completely rely on us for redress and justice.

By: Holden Back

Holden Back — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 01:25:43 +0000

I believe you entirely miss the point Bruce Michell. You feel the Prime Minister has a case to answer for on some questionable legal grounds, and Julie Bishop was simply following her clients’ instructions, or blamelessly providing moral support as a retired legal practitioner.

This stoush has been framed in terms of ‘character’ by its chief architects, so legality or otherwise is not the issue. Seems that might cut both ways.

By: Steve777

Steve777 — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:38:20 +0000

“There is no evidence Bishop acted legally for (or provided legal advice to) Lightfoot …”

Since when was evidence needed for a smear campaign. One way or another, Julie Bishop and Julia Gillard should be held to the same standard of evidence.

By: Achmed

Achmed — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 12:26:24 +0000

Would Abbott, Bishop and the rusted on Liberal supporters accept “doing the clients bidding” as a defence?
How could anyone even think that arguing for the court cases for people dying of asbestos diseases to be delayed was in anyway moral? It shows a complete lack of any compassion

By: Mike Moore

Mike Moore — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 04:55:13 +0000

Julie Bishop has stated “”It would be appalling for someone to draw some moral equivalence between my role in the Wittenoom case and establishing a union slush fund.” Never a truer word was spoken because Bishop’s behaviour was far more immoral.

Using legal tactics to deny people justice is totally reprehensible and immoral by any reasonable person’s standards. Yes she may have been doing her client’s bidding but that does not absolve her of being responsible for her actions when acting for CSR. The fact that she appears to still still not see that what she did was immoral by most people’s standards is a damning indictment of her character.

By: Achmed

Achmed — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 02:54:07 +0000

Liberal supporter or a part of the 30% all are ignoring the fact that Murray Cowper a Minister in WA State liberal Govt has stated that there is nothing untoward. In his press release he states the money paid into the fund by Thiess, not the taxpayers as some lie about, was spent on training.

By: Bruce Michell

Bruce Michell — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 02:02:15 +0000

The difference between Gillard and Bishop is stark and the dribble that is being spoutes as a comparative analysis is puerile and ignorant.
I have worked with lawyers over the past 15 years (I am not a lawyer)and can make this observation based on the media reporting.
Bishop has separated her perconal and professional associations, Gillard has not. By any moral, ethical, professional or legal standard, Gillard’s actions are reprehensible. The most telling point is her refusal to make a statement in Parliament, that can be scrutinised and verified. If she lies to Parliament, she’s out! Until she makes a clear statement, the opposition, on behalf of the people of Australia, is required to call her to account. That is their job and if the positions were reversed, all the socialist whingers would be marching in the streets.
I certainly support Tony Abbott’s intention to have a full judicial enquiry into this squalid affair and union corruption in general and let the law take it’s course.
The reason this matter now has legs, is that her own former Attorney General tipped the bucket on her and evidence is now emerging of wrongdoing.
It must be resolved.

By: Lee Tinson

Lee Tinson — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:55:58 +0000

Nice one, Crikey. But will Bishop and her supporters get the joke?

By: Achmed

Achmed — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 09:21:16 +0000

Julie Bishop in her work as a lead lawyer for the CSR company opposing compensation claims from workers dying of asbestos diseases sought to delay justice for those dying men.
Such caring, such ehtics. so much compassion…yeah right

By: Hugh (Charlie) McColl

Hugh (Charlie) McColl — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 01:47:36 +0000

ulysses butterfly, you are worse than the sloppy journalists that have been covering this story. You “quote” Julie Bishop thus:
“If the quote about Bishop saying solicitors can well give legal advice to their partners is correct then she is in direct contradiction with the teaching of an ethics lecture I just received this afternoon.” UB, Bishop did not say solicitors CAN WELL give legal advice to their partners (ie. their marriage-like partners).
This is the “quote” from Julie Bishop published in the article:
“I didn’t act as a solicitor at that time, he was entitled to have somebody present and I went.”
“Bishop insists she offered Nattrass no legal advice — she had ceased acting as as solicitor in 1998 when she went into Parliament and her practising certificate had lapsed.”

By: Rena Zurawel

Rena Zurawel — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:35:47 +0000

I think that Julia Bishop was chasing PM on a hunting expedition. It was a bit too much listening ad nauseam to her daily diatribes about another Julia in the parliament. A bit too much. She deserves being questioned now. Same rules apply.
I believe both ladies deserve each other and none of them would ever be my favourite politician. Too much of a personal ego, and too much of chasing career through relationships.
And, what do they know about Australian battling families they are supposed to represent?

By: AR

AR — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:34:57 +0000

BeachC - why would you trust ANY lawyer? They are the apotheosis of amoral, untethered pod people.

By: Mark from Melbourne

Mark from Melbourne — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:10:54 +0000

The coalition pushed the question of morals in relation to Gillard over 15 years ago. One of the shifting positions (of many) they and the media have taken so far.

If so then questions regarding Bishop’s morality around asbestos are equally valid, perhaps more so as the venality level is 50 times greater IMHO.

By: Will Arnott

Will Arnott — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:48:55 +0000

Grubby

By: Kate Ahearne

Kate Ahearne — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:27:06 +0000

Thank you, Crikey. There has been some sort of media ‘mob mentality’ going on about all this. People in the media who might otherwise have been quite intelligent, have been chucking themselves off the cliff like a herd of lemmings. Sometimes time plays into our hands, and on this occasion, we can all have a nice little nap until February when Parliament resumes. You have done a sterling, and quite lonely sort of job. Ms Gillard doesn’t always please me - refugees in particular, but I definitely don’t want to see the kind of behaviour the Opposition has been indulging in, rewarded with any kind of mandate next year.

By: ulysses butterfly

ulysses butterfly — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:23:28 +0000

The same course for instance makes a big point of solicitors using “ethical assertiveness” with prospective clients about what they cannot do - such as give legal advice to family members. Nor does it matter whether any money was paid, because expert legal advice must be given to a professional standard regardless, without fear or favour, and you can’t really be dispassionate with someone who is very close where domestic harmony may be jeopardised. You have to tell them to get independent advice.

On the other hand ethics has been a developing area of the legal profession over the last 2 decades and times may well have changed regarding ‘normal’ behaviour.

By: ulysses butterfly

ulysses butterfly — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:16:16 +0000

If the quote about Bishop saying solicitors can well give legal advice to their partners is correct then she is in direct contradiction with the teaching of an ethics lecture I just received this afternoon (as part of a mandatory sole practitioner course) with the NSW College of Law, accredited by the NSW Law Society. And yes that’s legal advice! Are the ethical standards different in WA? I doubt it. A solicitor has a fiduciary duty to a client to give the best and objective advice. Virtually by definition this is near impossible for a close relative or partner. All kinds of subjectivity inevitably affects judgement. For the very same reason medical doctors have to refer their own family away to other doctors to avoid a conflict of interest.

So is the Bishop quote accurate?

By: klewso

klewso — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 06:15:11 +0000

To face down a bully you have to stand up to them - unfortunately the only thing some of them understand is what they dish out, and the surprise when someone hits back in their way.

By: Ruprecht

Ruprecht — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:55:03 +0000

What the actual feck, Crikey?

We’ve been moaning about the muckraking treatment of PM Gillard — the solution is not to muckrake the other side, but NOT. TO. MUCKRAKE.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticise our politicians, based on policy positions.

Very disappointed.

By: Wombat

Wombat — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:52:54 +0000

I think that chasing up Bishop’s past as a lawyer is disgraceful. Political parties might be able to engage in tit-for-tat and “well, they started it”, but Crikey hold itself to higher standards than printing this irrelevant “smear”

By: beachcomber

beachcomber — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:20:08 +0000

I wouldn’t trust any lawyer who acted for a company mining asbestos, years after the health effects were widely known, Julie Bishop included.