The rich tapestry of the law

New-Old life for Dyse ... Allens' former senior partner's breast-taking moment ... The ineffectiveness of suppression orders in the internet age ... Private equity fund gobbles Lawyers Fortnightly ... Torturous 14 year grind by the SA Bureau de Spank 

IN just under a month, Dyson Heydon will be gone from the High Court. 

Have no fear, his future is in hand. 

He will be returning to the Sydney Bar 'n' Grill. Digs have already been procured at his old perch - 8 Selborne, or at least in the annex in the Law Society building in Palm Plaza. 

Dyse will have his shingle out pretty smartly. Opinions and advices will be available, peppered with obscure historical allusions. 

Roll-up, roll-up. 

*   *   *

THE out-in-the-open breastfeeding crisis, ignited by public intellectual and Channel 7 breakfast "personality" David Koch, has stirred some happy mammaries. 

The late Bob Stevenson, when senior partner of Allens, was an old-school stickler. 

To make sure everyone comported themselves properly Bob issued a directive about what was and wasn't to be worn at the law shop's new HQ in Martin Place's MLC Centre. (We're talking the late 1970s here.)

Thongs were out, black socks were in, etc. and there were all sorts of finicky rules about the appearance of women partners, associates and solicitors. 

Allens' staircase

Not long after the mighty law shop took-up residence at Seidler's cement fortress, Stevenson was sweeping, Ethel Merman like, down the spiral staircase between levels 47 and 46, when he noticed a woman in the reception area with a breast partially protruding from her clothes, feeding a babe-in-arms. 

WRDS, as Stevenson was known, turned on his heels and backtracked up the stairs to level 47, only to re-emerge on 46 via the fire-escape. 

Unlike Koch, he ignored this affront to his dress code. It's quite possible, that along with other Allens' partners, he had never previously seen a woman's breast. 

*   *   *

THE chief Madge of NSW, Graeme Henson, has granted Parish Patience managing partner David Bitel permission to take a trip overseas. 

Bitel, 60, has been charged with the sexual and indecent assault of two male refugees and two former clients in his Sydney CDB office between 1995 and 2004. 

He was charged on December 5 and he got Madge Lee Gilmore to suppress his name because he claimed that publicity surrounding the case would cause his law firm to collapse and that 35 staff would lose their jobs. 

Here's the first of the Google pages reporting that Bitel had been charged.  

Overnight the news websites were supposed to scrub Bitel's name and firm from reports about being charged with the offences and presumably to get Google to take down news search listings. 

How did that go? Not so well. His name remained there, along with his law firm, connected to reports of the alleged offences. 

After the suppression order

The next day (Dec. 6) Fairfax and the ABC were successful in getting the interim suppression lifted. 

The interim order has not been terribly effective, as even the national Daily Rupert had not got around to getting Google to remove the online search entry. 

BTW, Graeme Henson is suing the Daily Smellograph for defamation over stories that suggested he double-dipped his superannuation, both as chief Madge and a Dizzo judge. 

*   *   *

TO rename or not to rename. That was the issue facing the venerable Lawyers Weekly when it decided to publish its hard copy version fortnightly. 

Lawyers Fortnightly had a slightly mouldy ring to it, so they decided to stick with Lawyers Weekly - just as The Womans Weekly steadfastly refused to become The Womans Monthly.

In any event, the hard copy version is becoming less important, as it's now all about a digital-first strategy. Online content is king. 

Next week private equity outfit Catalyst will complete its purchase of the Reed Business Information titles.  

This includes Lawyers Weekly, Australian Doctor, Money Management, Travel Weekly and B&T. 

Plus, there are a heap of online directories: ferret.com.au hotfrog.com.au and gohospitality.com.au 

Lawyers Weekly journalists have been sending flowers and chocolates to the Catalyst team in the hope of inspiring them to make more resources available. 

The business will be "rebranded" and there's lots of talk about "multi-channel operations ... deep reach ... and industry verticals". 

In any event, journalism in the clutches of private equity types doesn't sound like a hell of a lot of fun. 

*   *   *

LAST month Victoria Legal Aid brought the shutters down on a raft of traditional services. 

Snip, snip, snip for child protection, family and criminal law cases:   

• Fees for instructing solicitors in criminal trials will be limited to two half-days; 
• Funding for criminal appeals to the court of appeal and the High Court will only be provided where there is likely to be a reduction in sentence;
• Funding for family law trials will only be granted where the other party is represented by private funding or pro bono assistance; and
• The threshold for funding in infringement matters has been increased from $1,000 to $5,000. 

Also, gone is funding for: 

• Children under 10 for child protection proceedings (unless recommended by the court); and 
• Parties who are not parents in child protect proceedings. 

What is interesting is is the way the lolly jar at the public purpose funds have been raided by governments to prop-up legal aid. 

As we can see, in Victoria the money siphoned from the PPF to legal aid has gone from $16 million in 2004 to $25.6 million today - a 60 percent increase. 

In NSW, money from the PPF to legal aid has gone from $18.4 million in 2004 to $40 million in 2011-2012 - an increase of 117 percent. 

Because state governments refuse to properly fund legal aid out of their own budgets, the public purpose funds in NSW and Victoria are being eaten alive. 

And yet the cuts go deeper. 

*   *   *

DISCIPLINARY cases against lawyers are guaranteed to be grindingly slow. 

The independent Adelaide online newspaper InDaily has unearthed a scandalously tardy process surrounding complaints of unprofessional conduct against two local lawyers.  

It has taken the SA legal system a dazzling 14 years to handle the case against Michael Prescott and Leo Reynolds. 

The allegations were first made in 1999 and concerned the lawyers' handling of litigation arising from the collapse of the Lateral Investors Group, a futures market punting scheme promising eye watering returns to investors of between 20 and 40 percent. 

About $18 million was plunged into the get-rich-quick scheme, only to have the pack of cards fall over in December 1997. 

Investors engaged Reynolds and Prescott, who said there could be successful claims against Lateral's accountant, insurers and others for negligent advice. 

A fighting fund was created, which turned into a bit of a lawyers' honey pot. 

Contributors understood that charges would only begin once the case was ready to roll. Others complained there were no monthly reports. 

One of the denuded clients complained to the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board in 1999. In July 2006 the board got around to laying charges in the disciplinary tribunal. 

There was a nine day hearing in May and September 2007. 

Prescott applied for an adjournment because he was depressed. During the adjournment a member of the tribunal's panel died. 

In October 2008, nine years after the complaints were first made, a new panel was appointed. Two months later Prescott sought a permanent stay. 

Ten months further on again, Justice Layton in the SA Supremes dismisses his application. 

He then applied to the tribunal for a permanent stay. It was listed for hearing on February 2-5, 2010. On January 19 that year, he withdrew his application. 

Eventually, the tribunal got around to hearing the charges in July, October and December 2011. 

In May last year it found Prescott and Reynolds guilty of unprofessional conduct. 

Overcharging, the handling of trust money and failure to communicate were the matters the subject of the spanking. 

Prescott was found to have given false evidence and not shown remorse or insight. 

Reynolds was reprimanded, fined $5,000 and required to be re-educated in trust accounts. 

The board has applied to the Supreme Court to strike Prescott off the jam roll. 

An appeal by Prescott was dismissed by the Supreme Court just before Christmas. 

The investors got caught in the age old trap - losing their money in a dud flutter, then hiring lawyers to investigate and then hiring more lawyers to investigate the lawyers who were supposed to investigate.