Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Judicial shockers ... Latest from the trouble prone Queensland branch of the Federales ... Administrative law upsets ... Sandy Street overturned ... On the level in Canberra ... Missing aged care accountant ... Law shop managing director skewered ... Ginger Snatch reports from courtrooms around the nation ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Polly gets a cracker ... The Parrot falls from his bully pulpit … Performances … The end of the Wharf Revue … Bruce McClintock on stage at The Onion Club … Freaks on the loose in Washington ... Read on ... 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

It's Hitlerish ... Reelection of a charlatan ... Republicans take popular vote for the first time in 20 years ... Amnesia ... Trashing a democracy ... Trump and his team of troubled men ... Mainstream media wilts in the eye of the storm ... Depravity, greed and revenge are the new normal ... Roger Fitch files from Washington ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


The life, loves, triumphs and disappointments of Frosty Tom Hughes ... 1923-2024 ... More >> 

Justinian's Bloggers

A trial for France ... French teacher beheaded after showing caricatures of Mohammed to the class ... Young student's false claim ends in tragedy ... Misinformation takes off on social media ... Media storm ... Religion infiltrates public life ... Trials unfold ... Hugh Vuillier reports ... Read more >> 

"Over many years, certain journalists employed by Nine (formerly Fairfax) newspapers have been resentful of our client’s prominence as a commentator on many political and cultural issues, and the malicious and concocted allegations giving rise to the imputations constitute a concerted attempt to destroy our client’s reputation. 

Following the Sydney Morning Herald's exposure ... Mark O'Brien, Alan Jones' solicitor, December 12, 2023  ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

The great interceptor ... Rugby League ... Dennis Tutty and the try he shouldn't have scored ... Case that changed the face of professional sport ... Growth of the player associations, courtesy of the Barwick High Court ... Free kick ... Restraint of trade ... Braham Dabscheck comments ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

Rosenblum v Foreman ... From Justinian's archive ... March 1995 ... When Rupert Rosenblum went to court over a missing house ... Memories of Carol Foreman and her backdated document ... Rocking the foundations of the admin of justice ... Read more ..


 

 

« Judge bounces lawyer tax scheme fight | Main | Master of the rope »
Saturday
Jan012000

Gruzman never too sick

Father and son team ... Gruzman snr cleared by stipes of threat to withdraw from case over insult to his son and junior ... Heinous accusation of barrister attending client's premises without instructing solicitor ... Row over fees

From Justinian, March 1994

The Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal, by majority, has dismissed complaints of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct against famous Sydney silk Laurie Gruzman.

The tribunal's chairman, Douglas Staff QC and Hal Sperling QC were in the majority. Lay member Denis Mahon dissented, but the tribunal's judgment gave no clue as to his reasoning.

The NSW bar council had referred a complaint that Gruzman had threatened to withdraw his service during a major Federal Court hearing because his client criticised the performance of his son, Adrian, who was acting as his junior.

Gruzman denied telling the client that unless a letter containing the criticism was withdrawn, he would be "too sick to continue".

In 1988 Gruzman was senior counsel for Amann Aviation, which was engaged in a long and complex claim against the Commonwealth for terminating the Amann Coastwatch contract.

In November 1988 Vanda Gould, chairman of Continental Venture Capital Ltd (CVC) which controlled Amann, wrote to the solicitor instructing Gruzman, Stephen Lancken, seeking redress for what he said was "the absence of any evidence of constructive work" by Adrian Gruzman.

Gould said in a statutory declaration that Gruzman snr told him on the phone that if the letter was not withdrawn, he would be too sick to contemplate continuing with the case. After that Gould instructed Lancken to disregard the letter.

A solicitor in the case, Malcolm Gracie, gave evidence that he was in Gruzman's chambers when Gruzman had the phone conversation with Gould.

According to this evidence Gruzman told Gould: "You can't make allegations like that against a barrister and then expect them to be ignored."

Gruzman had used the words "sick" or "sickening", but Gracie had not understood Gruzman to be threatening to withdraw from the case.

A director of CVC, Joseph Shlegeris, gave evidence that Guzman had told him that although the letter made him feel sick, he was not threatening to walk out of the case.

The tribunal majority said the complaint about the threat was supported only by Gould's evidence, but "having regard to the view we have formed of Gould's credibility, we have no hesitation in finding that the threat alleged by Gould was not made".

The majority also dismissed a complaint of unsatisfactory professional conduct which alleged that Gruzman, without justification, had conferred with Gould at the CVC offices and in the absence of his instructing solicitor.

Gruzman said he and young Adrian had gone to the offices to inspect documents because his chambers were already cluttered with papers associated with the case.

Gould claimed Gruzman snr told him during the visit that he would "no longer be willing to provide my full attention and effort to the case unless the issue of my fees for the American trip is resolved to my satisfaction".

The majority found there was evidence from a secretary at CVC that the Gruzmans had worked on the documents until well into the night.

"The imputation that the visit to the client's offices was contrived in order to have a private conversation with Gould is also inconsistent with the evidence that Gould and Gruzman snr were alone from time to time in chambers and ... spoke frequently on the telephone."

These and other aspects of Gould's evidence "leaves us without confidence in his testimony".

Counsel for the bar association, Chester Porter QC, had said that any breach of the rules relating to Gruzman's attendance at the conference without an instructing solicitor would be pertinent where it had occurred in conjunction with having arranged the visit for the alleged ulterior purpose.

The majority said that breach of the rules was not the gravamen of Gould's complaint in relation to the episode and therefore did not arise.

They were satisfied Gruzman had done nothing that was in any way untoward.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.