Tricks of the publishing trade

Da Mystery of the Da Vinci Code litigation ... Larry Adler Dinner disappoints ... A slice of history from the "Uglies" ... Queensland's fearful Bureau de Spank ... That was then ... From Justinian's archive, April 2006

Judge identifies litigation's role in book promotion

Justice Peter Smith of the English High Court is a rather droll chap if his judgment in Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh v The Random House Group Ltd is anything to go by.

That was the copyright case in which Baigent and Leigh claimed that Dan Brown pinched the "architecture" of the Da Vinci Code from their book, The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail.

Alas, the claimants went down in a screaming and costly heap.

Justice Smith pointed out early on in his reasons that as a result of various mergers and acquisitions Random House published both The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail AND The Da Vinci Code. He went on:

"It is a testament to cynicism in our times that there have been suggestions that this action is nothing more than a collaborative exercise designed to maximise publicity for both books. It is true that the book sales of both books have soared during the course of the trial (in the case of HBHG it is said to be a tenfold increase).

I am not in a position to comment on whether this cynical view is correct but I would say that if it was such a collaborative exercise Mr Baigent and Mr Brown both went through an extensive ordeal in cross examination which they are likely to remember for some time."

To enjoy the unusual experience of a polished and readable judgment you can read from from Justice Smith here. 

*   *   *

Larry Adler: former patron saint of the Henderson Institute

There's angst on the rubber chicken circuit. The Sydney Institute (aka The Henderson Institute) has just held its annual knees-up last week, heavily attended by serried ranks of big law firms.

The speaker was Clive James and a random poll of attendees thought that the ex-pat cultural observer was not performing to his magnificent potential.

Clive read great slabs of his works preceded by some political gags.

"Lazy," was the agreed word to describe the show, which is not what you'd expect if you'd forked up $2,530 for as table of ten.

"Corporate supporters" of the Sydney Institute only paid $1,870 a table, but who's who is never utterly clear because the institute doesn't declare who is a corporate supporter. 

The Financial Review's Rear Window column declared that "many in the audience were a little underwhelmed".

The Sydney Morning Herald's CBD writer unkindly reminded us that the event used to be called the Larry Adler Dinner in honour of one of the insurance industry's great inspirations, the founder of F*** All Insurance and father of Rotten Rodney. It went on to say that Clive "disappointed most of the crowd". 

But the Hendos were having none of this. Because Gerard writes for the SMH, wife Anne (deputy director of the Sydney Institute) shot off a letter to the paper insisting that Clive James was "hilarious", while Jolly Gerard himself (the executive director) told the AFR that "James topped and tailed his speech with awesome humour".

Of course, whether a dinner speaker is witty and entertaining is a matter of opinion. But if Ma and Pa Hendo insist Clive was funny then, by Christ, Clive was funny.

Personally, I find the Henderson Institute, chaired by Meridith (Hellcat) Hellicar, one of the most hilarious outfits imaginable.

*   *   *

Clarke MLC: former Chinatown solicitor, now Parliamentary Secretary for Justice

Who do I see shepherding people of Oriental persuasion up King Street, Sydney, but former solicitor and spooky right wing NSW Liberal "ugly" David Clarke MLC.

What was so noticeable about Dave, apart from his cheery demeanour so close to the death of patron saint Lyenko Urbanchich, was that his magnificent sweep-over halo has been improved by a liberal daub of Grecian 2000.

At the time of John Brogden's untimely demise as leader of the NSW Libs, Clarke was pulling the levers to have the right's swivel-eyed heel-clicker Sub-Lt P. Debnam fill the vacancy.

Since then not a peep has been heard from "Nobby", not even replies to my emails seeking details of his former career path.

The sight of the MP with a band of Chinese folk reminded me that in the early 1980s D.J. Clarke worked at Chinatown law shop Mee Ling.

The proprietor at that time was Paul Mee Ling, who in 1973 was fined by the Statutory Committee for practising without a ticket.

The solicitor's appeal was turned down in 1974 by those old brutes Moffitt, Hardie and Reynolds, finding that he had "wilfully failed to renew his practicing certificate" and still continued to trade.

This "flagrant" breach amounted to professional misconduct.

Does this piece of forgotten but formative history somehow explain Clarkey's solicitude to his Chinese friends?

Probably not, but I thought it worth mentioning anyway. 

*   *   *

Field agents in Queensland have told me of a wacky finding last year by the Legal Practice Committee.

Peter Arnold Murrell at the relevant time was a principal of Murrell Stephenson.

He had been retained by Arthur Knight, Maxine Cook and Marilyn Campbell in relation to a prospective claim of professional negligence against Southport doctor Elaine Kluver.

Knight, Cook and Campbell respectively were the husband and daughters of the late Mrs Gladys Knight.

According to particulars of charge before the LPC on June 16, 2003, Murrell sent this letter by fax to Dr Kluver:

"As you will remember, I acted for Gladys Knight who unfortunately, died on 28 May 2003. Her husband and daughters happened to note that your mother also passed away last week. At their request they have asked me to write to you and to remind you of what you did to their mother and to tell you of the pain, suffering and problems that she experienced as a result of the incompetent manner in which you treated their mother when she was alive.

Although my clients are not privy to the circumstances in which your mother died, they hope that she experienced the same hurt, harm and detriment before she died, or if not, that you experienced suffering of the likes that their mother suffered and the pain and anguish that they went through as a consequence thereof."

I know, it's scarcely believable, but you can check the charge and the orders for yourself.

Because Murrell pleaded guilty and was bankrupt, the committee decided that his artful lawyer's letter amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct and fined him $2,000 with 12 months to pay.

He was also up for a maximum of $2,000 for the costs of the Legal Services Commissioner, again with 12 months to pay.

How's that for an impressive birching?