ParfumGigi@aol.com

Melbourne Herald Sun - Melbourne,Australia
Then you suggest that Dow Corning, some five years ago, handed over $32 million to our clients, even though our claims about the implants were false. ...

April 03, 2007 12:00am

I was so chuffed I spent the rest of the day searching the corridors of Slater & Gordon for a lawyer who would be prepared to act for him.

My search has led me to the conclusion that the old joke about the difference between lawyers and laboratory rats might be wrong.

You know, the one about lab technicians becoming attached to the rats, whereas they had no such feelings towards lawyers, and that lawyers breed faster.

It seems there are some things even lawyers won't do.

But don't despair, Andrew. I'm sure there are plenty of law firms who would love to have you as a client.

That's the beauty of our democracy, isn't it?

It doesn't matter whether you are a Left-wing crackpot who believes globalisation is a Right-wing conspiracy, or a Right-wing crackpot who believes climate change is a Left-wing conspiracy.

People are entitled to legal representation, just as they are entitled to freedom of speech, no matter how weird their views might seem to others.

So, Andrew, imagine you are marching up and down Phillip St, Sydney, in September during the APEC summit.

You are holding a placard reading, "Nuke Tehran. Let's finish 'em off ".

All of a sudden, some over-zealous young security guard belts you. Painful, yes, but feel assured you're just as entitled to the protection of the law as everyone else.

Herald Sun readers, of course, get the benefit of being on the receiving end of your right to freedom of speech on a very regular basis.

It's an uncommon privilege, a platform like that. It carries a responsibility to at least try to be as accurate as you can. But that's a responsibility you don't always live up to, Andrew.

Herald Sun readers are entitled to know that many of the assertions in your article about Slater & Gordon, "A lawyers' picnic" (March 14), were just plain wrong.

We have already denied that we got anything like $600,000 in legal fees for acting for the S11 protesters. We did get paid by our clients for acting in those 43 cases over a five-year period.

It was a lot of work, but it didn't result in our receiving even half as much as you or your own secret government source have suggested.

Then you suggest our fee agreements provide that if we win, in addition to our chargeable fees, we take a quarter of the damages payout. Not true.

Our fee agreement doesn't say that. It says the fees may be increased by up to one quarter if there is a successful outcome.

Yes, yes, I know you have since corrected that. Nevertheless, you did get it wrong.

Then you suggest that Dow Corning, some five years ago, handed over $32 million to our clients, even though our claims about the implants were false.

We made a number of claims about Dow Corning's breast implants of the 1970s and '80s, principally that they were prone to rupture, leakage and hardening. Not even Dow Corning contested this by the end of the litigation.

It is also true that after conducting that litigation for 12 years and making more than 40 trips to the United States for court cases, hearings, mediations and settlement conferences, Slater & Gordon paid me a substantial bonus.

My partners seemed to think that after doing all that work over that period of years and not being paid by the month, as Dow Corning's lawyers were, some kind of bonus was fair.

It was paid out of fees, which had been monitored and approved by the Supreme Court.

But it was quite untrue for you to say that the day after one of my former partners sued Slater & Gordon, we reached a confidential settlement with him. In fact, he withdrew his claim and sent me a written letter of apology for his unfounded accusations.

I've had a copies dropped off to your editor and put on the Slater & Gordon website.

I don't like secret settlements any more than you do. I think that justice is best served when things are transparent.

But mostly I'm just the lawyer. Decisions about confidentiality are made by our clients. We do as they say, subject to our duties to the court, and that's as it should be.

Likewise, I wish that everyone had the financial ability to pay for their lawyers up front when they have a legal problem, just as Dow Corning, or James Hardie, were able to pay their lawyers.

But not everyone does. That's why no-win, no-fee agreements are important. You might not agree with every particular outcome, but just imagine a world where it is only the likes of James Hardie and Dow Corning who could afford to hire a lawyer at all.

On second thoughts, Andrew, don't imagine that. It would probably only get you excited.

But after all that, I'm glad there's one thing we can agree on. Lawyers who initiate claims they know, or ought to know, are frivolous or without any merit should be liable to pay the other side's costs, if that's the finding of the court.

I hope it will gladden that big heart of yours to know that that is already the law.

It has been for years.