A Rant about Minter Ellison

The unpopular client will not always be the underdog. Amidst all the furore about Minters' provision of legal advice to the Attorney General, and we still don't know whether it was instructed officially or in his private capacity, most of it seems to be focussed on the issues of whether the partner who accepted the instructions followed proper procedure, and if he didn't, the propriety of the CEO reprimanding him for that in front of the entire firm. Michael Pelly's interviews with Mark Liebler and Genevieve Howard, as reported in today's Fin Review, are welcome exceptions. Whilst some recognition has been given to the rule of law and the right to legal representation, it seems to me that the current twitstorm on Shitter (no, not a Spoonerism, I meant what I said) has deflected consideration from what is actually involved here.

It is not so much a question of the rights of accused, as of the obligations of practising lawyers, which are owed to the system we are responsible for administering and by extension to the community and the nation, and in return for the discharge of which we, or at least most of us and surely the partners and staff of Minter Ellison, are afforded substantial privilege. A mercenary soldier or an assassin for hire may enjoy the moral luxury of choosing their clients with discrimination, and rejecting ones whose values and aspirations don't align with their own. Lawyers however, like doctors, have a wider social responsibility and must expect sometimes to have to suppress their personal distaste for a particular client or patient in fulfilment of it, as any criminal lawyer well knows. Criminal law is the pointy end of the principle but it applies no less in civil matters, if the legal system is expected to remain the default method of resolving intractable disputes.

There are effective alternatives to lawyers and the law. The poor and powerless, but popular, have always been able to raise a mob and their ability to do so these days is greatly enhanced, unless governments and the powerful social media organisations cease to indulge them. Until then, "a la lanterne" is always a possibility. The powerful, who are usually also the wealthy, if denied legal representation can always resort to the aforesaid mercenaries or assassins, to protect themselves and achieve their aims. Both have options "outside the system" but neither is a very pleasant alternative to contemplate, at least for an aging lawyer who still has faith in legal process. Think about it. In my experience most young lawyers do, and far more deeply than their risk-averse and media-obsessed bosses give them credit for.

For every young female Associate at Minters who reportedly felt conflicted by the firm's acceptance of the instruction to advise the AG, I suspect there were as many more who felt demeaned or patronised by the CEO's ill-considered email. Likewise, to suggest that her prompt ouster was an example of "how the firm treats senior women", is equally insulting to the obviously more appropriately qualified female partner who has replaced her, at least pro tem. For any young lawyers still genuinely distressed by the situation, I recommend they draw reassurance and inspiration from a couple of more contemporary role models than Atticus Finch or Edward Marshall Hall.

I have no idea what either Sue Chrysanthou SC or Rebekah Giles thinks about Porter, The Patriarchy or the polarised public opinion in this case. Chrysanthou may be bound by the cab rank rule but Giles is not. What they evidently share, however, is acceptance of the practising lawyer's commitment to the law and to society, which requires that their services be provided as and when needed, including in unpopular causes, and that their personal views and preferences not be allowed to compromise their duties toward the Courts and their clients. A lawyer who cannot bring themselves to do that, I suggest, is as out of place in private legal practice as a surgeon who faints at the sight of blood.

Fred Hawke

19 March 2021.