Thanks to the anonymous spy who tipped us off to the life-long male bosom saga confronting PwC Chief Operatios Officer Neil Wilson. Had we had our collective melons screwed on correctly we probably would have seen the AFR article (4/3) in the first place!

In a remarkable “men’s health” piece appearing in last Thursday’s AFR, PwC partner Wilson, the figure we once rebuked for allegedly sending Australian PwC jobs offshore to India, walks us step by step through a life living with man boobs.

“Since his chubby adolescence [Wilson] had silently lived with male breasts, feeling self-conscious but never knowing anything could be done about them. As a youth he had been embarrassed changing in the locker room and as an adult… he never wore tight tops. Polo shirts were out… and so was lycra, even though he was a committed cyclist. He was was always comfortable going to work at PwC … because loose-fitting business shirts with buttons and a pocket provided some disguise.”

Breast distress! What is a corporate partner to do when he is jugg-a-lugg full of melon-choly?

As luck would have it, Wilson, whilst thumbing through the paper one morning discovered that breast-reduction surgery was an option.

“whilst reading the paper over breakfast in London last year, Wilson’s attention was caught by [a story] which said that increasing numbers of men are now having breast-reduction surgery… [Soon after] he had himself referred to a cosmetic breast surgeon. At the first consultation the surgeon asked him to remove his shirt. ”Wow!” he said. “These are whoppers, I’ve never seen any as big as these.”

Wilson knew his breasts looked fleshy. 

In subsequent breast reduction surgery, the sugeon is reported to have removed 160 grams of breast tissue which the doctor described as “a lot”.

Now, several months after the surgery, Wilson is satisfied with his new chest. With that familiar degree of corporate partner modesty,  Wilson told the AFR:

“At 50, I didn’t expect I would come out with a male model chest, but I’ve been working hard with weights and can wear a skin-tight top and look reasonable.”

Does your chest look reasonable? Do you suffer from bitch-tits?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Earlier this week, the federal governement, through its Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA), named 12 Australian law firms that support women in the workplace. Those named were: Corrs Chambers Wegarth, Baker & McKenzie, AAR, Blakes, Cooper Grace Ward, Freehills, Holding Redlich, G+T, Maddocks, Mallesons, McCullough Robertson and Sparke Helmore.

One firm was conspicuous in its absence - Clayton Utz.

We received the following comments from an anonymous spy last night in relation to the non-appearance of Clutz this year:

Six is an interesting number.

Six is the number of new partners @ Clutz - all male. It is also, according to what firmspy would have us beleive the number of grdauates - all female who were terminated by Clutz in Melbourne. Considering these numbers it probably won’t come as any surprise that Clayton Utz was today stripped of its ‘Employer of Choice for Women’ citation. Freehills, Mallesons, Blakes, Allens all retained theirs 
 
Here is what the firm had to say last year about being awarded the citation -

Clayton Utz’ Chief Executive Partner David Fagan said the firm was proud to be recognised by EOWA as an employer of choice for women. “We are committed to fostering a culture of genuine equality and opportunity for women at Clayton Utz,” he said. “We are working hard to find new ways to help create an environment that will maximise women’s opportunities to succeed and advance their careers.”

In particular, Mr Fagan said the introduction and availability of flexible working arrangements had been well received and had had a positive impact on the retention of women at the firm.

“A number of our female staff have been promoted while on maternity leave or while working part-time, including to the partnership. This shows that flexible working arrangements do not limit opportunities for career progression at Clayton Utz.”

Following the introduction of a formal Working from Home policy, a number of staff - both legal and non legal - have been able to balance their family and work commitments through working from home arrangements. These include several senior lawyers, a regional HR manager, and the entire team of eight word processing operators in Brisbane, some with previously long commutes or childcare responsibilities.

A large percentage of women at Clayton Utz also works part-time or under job share arrangements.

Earlier this month Mr Fagan formally launched MOMENTUM, a national network for Clayton Utz’ female lawyers to support them in building successful careers at Clayton Utz.

“MOMENTUM is an important part of our commitment to being an employer of choice for women so we continue to attract, grow and retain Australia’s most talented female lawyers,” said Mr Fagan.

So, what has happened this year Dave?

EOWA acting director Mairi Steele said, in announcing this year’s cited organisiations:

“By applying for and receiving this citation, these organisations are not only meeting the pre-requisites and criteria, but are publicly declaring their commitment to making their workplaces equitable… They know they are not perfect, but they are working hard to make their organisations good places for women to work. Women still earn less than men, women are still sadly absent from many key decision making roles in business, women are still sexually harassed and bullied in the workplace and women are still discriminated against based on old fashioned stereotypes and work practices.

By extension, does this mean Clutz is no longer ‘committed to making its workplace equitable’? No longer a ‘good place for women to work’?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Last week Lara Bingle announced an intention to sue AFL footballer Brendon Fevola over the dissemination of of a revealing photograph taken of the model as she showered, allegedly by Fevola.

In relation to her prospects of success, our favourite Tresscox partner Nic Pullen, who is currently retained by former wine-o Derryn Hinch, had the following to say:

Nicholas Pullen says she would “have to prove [the photograph] came from Fevola and then she would have to prove when Fevola sent it off; the reasonable person would expect it to end up in Woman’s Day.”

…”The next step in any defamation formula is: how is it making people think less of Lara Bingle than they already do. Well, she’s coming off a low base on that one. In the version of the photograph I have seen, it doesn’t look like you are seeing terribly much more of Lara Bingle than you have already seen. It would be a bit different if we were looking at a photograph of the Governor-General. So I think you can pretty well safely strike defamation off.”

Do you think Lara Bingle is coming off a low base?

Does your job description entitle you to look at bare-breasted photographs?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Thanks to the Deloitte spy who sent us the following comments over the weekend:

Deloitte Private in Sydney has lost another 2 audit seniors. The rate at which Deloitte Private loses audit seniors is phenominal and partners, including cluster lead, Michael Kaplan, are living in a sense of denial in which they state that ”nothing is wrong”. Could it be that the entire Deloitte culture says lets screw staff with all we’ve got for the enrichment of the partner group? I love how Giam Swiegers, CEO, defends his and the partner greed by referring to the fact that at Deloitte people are motivated by being engaged, not being paid bonuses. Well then why do the partners get bonuses? Recent access to a file that should probably have been confidential reveals that non equity partners bonus in “times of having to monitor costs” was around $60k pa. On top of an average salary of $240k makes a sweet $300k per year (I emphasise that this is relatively newly appointed partners and is only the base). No wonder a new audit partner was able to splash out on an expensive home in Mosman. So what do the other staff get? Well lets see, Brand new grads - $50k pa Exp analysts (pretty much doing the job of a senior without the title - $55k pa, a measely $5k more pa. Audit senior - about $60k pa Manager - starting on around $85k And then they wonder why the audit seniors are leaving the firm!!

Are senior staff walking out on your firm? Are partners giving themselves bonuses while juniors starve?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Short of an earthquake shredding razing its offices, things could probably not get much worse for Clayton Utz right now.

A few weeks ago we heard the scandalous details of the defections of over a dozen of the firm’s most respected, most employable partners to A&O. Then yesterday we reported that Clayton Utz sacked in excess of 30% of the firm’s Melbourne grads in an episode of corporate abUtz.

And now this, thanks to a sexist lighthearted Clutz spy:

You ladies are a little slow to the punch, or are there too many Clutzers working at your site. A new decision’s been released in Mitchell v. Clayton Utz.

The decision widens the scope of the claims against Clayton Utz at the same time that it also makes an important point about sexual harassment law. In October, the ADT refused Mitchell leave to pursue complaint of sexual harassment for allegations that he was called Trench because the Tribunal found that “Trench”  did not constitute sexual conduct.  The Tribunal has now corrected the decision.  If the word “Trench” is used alone (as some of Mitchell’s allegations claimed), it is still not sexual. However, if, as some of the allegations claim, Trench is used in connection with other conduct of a sexual nature, such as jokes that “articulated the association Trenchcoats with deviant sexual behavior”   then in those instances the nickname “Trench” does constitute conduct of a sexual nature.  Mitchell was given leave to pursue these latter allegations, along with  his other sexual harassment, disability discrimination and victimization complaints that were already granted leave.

For those who are unfamliar with the saga that is “Trench”, let us refresh your memory with some extracts from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Tribunal decision to permit ex-Clutz lawer Michael Mitchell to pursue claims against his former firm:

Mr Mitchell alleges that Mr Williams, Mr Taylor, Ms Goumenis, Ms Best and Mr Robinson, all employees of Clayton Utz, sexually harassed him. With respect to Mr Williams, it is alleged that:

…He says they were making jokes about him ‘articulating the association between trench coats and deviant and illegal sexual behaviour and referring to him as a ‘flasher’ and as ‘trench’.

[it is alleged that]… On one occasion, Mr Williams ‘explained to the applicant how solicitors could take paralegals home for sex’.[emphasis added].

[it is alleged] One Friday evening Mr Taylor went into Mr Mitchell’s office, took his coat, put it on and ran up and down the hallway calling out ‘trench, trench, trench’. He then went into the office of Mr Ho and continued to make fun of Mr Mitchell. Mr Taylor agrees that he put Mr Mitchell’s coat on and walked several metres down the hall, saying ‘trench-coat’ several times in a sing-song voice.

…With respect to Ms Goumenis, Mr Mitchell alleges that she referred to Mr Mitchell as ‘trench’ as a way of ‘getting his attention’

Mr Mitchell says that Mr Robinson is a partner of Clayton Utz and that he was aware that he was being called ‘trench’ and did nothing to stop the conduct… According to Mr Mitchell, Mr Robinson derived ‘maximum enjoyment’ out of the [Trench] comments.

Conclusion. Leave is granted for the complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Williams and Mr Taylor personally and against Clayton Utz as their employer…

And who would have thought that, in the immediate aftermath of this remarkable saga, the Firm Spy would come into the possession of some photos, rumoured to be of alleged “Trench” harasser Jaime Taylor, cross-dressing with a blow-up sex doll?

Do you have faith in our justice system? How about the legal justice system?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

We were dismayed to find out this morning that a rumour, heard several months ago by a Firm Spy team member but later dismissed because it appeared too farcical, is in fact legitimate.

Yes, a perverted former Freehills cleaner with voyeuristic urges took it upon himself one evening late last year, on his nightly dunny-scrub, to photograph an unsuspecting Freehills lawyer perched atop the throne!

Oh behave!

As reported by The Age:

With a heap of fanfare, Clayton Utz announced on Monday that 6 new partners had been appointed to the firm. The firm said that the appointments reflected the emergency situation where several lawyers were rumoured to be readying themselves to give the partnership an ultimatum “calibre and depth of talent at the firm”. You’ll recall we reported a rumour that 6 partnership promotions were set to be announced one week prior to the official announcement.

In that post, we mentioned that the Clayton Utz equity pool might shrink on the back of the promotions and in light of the fact that the firm will soon be opening an office in Hong Kong and had also resolved to lift the pay freeze.

But something didn’t add up. Yes it was a dire situation, but how could Australia’s greatest corporate tighwad show such a preparedness to splash the cash?

Alas, our instincts have proven correct. What does an emotionless, money-hungry corporate enterprise do when equity value is threatened? You guessed right - they sack a few people!

In the words of the numerous Clayton Utz firm spies who have written to us in the past day (thanks to all for your efforts):

First this:

Clayton Utz did not renew the contracts of 8 out of their 20 2009 graduates today.

Then this:

Clayton Utz Melbourne hired 20 graduates in 2009. 2 graduates resigned last week to take up other jobs. Yesterday the firm advised 6 of the 2009 graduates that they would not be kept on. The 6 let go will be paid out the remaiing 4 weeks of their contract and not allowed back to the office. In less than 12 months the original group of 20 is now just 12. Pay is still frozen at 56k with a review in the coming weeks.

…[moments later, this was sent] Correction re Clayton Utz graduates: There are only 11 with ongoing employment, the 12th has been put on a 6th month contract.

Then this:

Yesterday (2 March) Clutz Melbourne told six of their 2009 grads that their careers at the firm were over. In a series of orchestrated meetings, the unlucky ones were told of their fate and then… wait for it… given a cab charge and advised to take the rest of the day off!

And finally, this:

Dear Firmspy, In case you haven’t already heard, the Clayton Utz graduate lawyers found out yesterday whether they were offered a permanent placement. Of 16 graduates, 6 were “not offered” a permanent placement due to “business reasons”. All 6 were women. The graduates have been given the option of being paid out until the end of the month. A silver lining i suppose. It is a repeat of 200, where 7 out of 19 graduates were let go. The way HR approached the situation has been appalling, with graduates made to feel as though they should exit quietly through the back door as opposed to being thanked for their hard work and long hours over the past 12 months. Clutz are only starting 15 graduates in the March 2010 intake - here’s hoping that at least half of them can actually keep their job…

You read it right: a cab charge; a few grand; and a polished boot to the backside. Where we hail from, that’s called abUtz!

How can Clutz make a business case for sacking the Melbournian grads, given the paltry wages paid to them and the fact that the defecting partners were all Sydney based?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

After a fantastic year in 2009 in which the firm won the inaugural Firm Spy Corporate Firm of the Year Award, Freehills has descended into damage control today with a former lawyer alleging the firm discriminated against her.

According to The Age, the case highlights the poor working conditions at law firms.

The lawyer in question is Nicole Stransky, a 50 year old, who was employed at Freehills from 2006. She claims she was bullied and harassed during 2008 and 2009 to such an extent that she developed suicidal thoughts and a general deterioration in her mental health.

It is quite ironic that these allegations are being levelled at the firm, given that Freehills ex-managing partner Peter Butler said at the 2007 Tristan Jepson Memorial Lecture (an event honouring the legacy of a lawyer who committed suicide after battling depression) that:

This is not a matter of competitive edge between professionals, whether barristers or solicitors or warring firms … this is a matter that the profession needs to work on jointly… I’ve seen the [devastating effects of depression] in my family. I’ve seen it with my friends and I’ve seen it with my own firm. I want to do something about it. All of us do. We need to bring this issue of depression to the forefront of our thinking. Not as something that is embarassing and we don’t talk about it; it should not be like that … [we need to] develop a culture where for someone to say to someone else - a friend or colleague - ‘I’m depresssed’ is seen in the same way as any other illness, worthy of no more embarrassment or awkwardness than ‘I’ve got a fever’ or some other problem.

If Stransky’s allegations are to be believed, she was never exposed to a culture in which it was “ok” to say she was depressed. As reported today in The Age:

Her case, now in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, is alleging discrimination on the basis of age, employment activity and her impairment. An earlier unfair dismissal claim was confidentially settled after her job was terminated while she was on sick leave in April last year…

…she said the problems started once she spoke to human resources in April and May 2008 and told them that younger colleagues were getting more work and that she was being excluded by her partners. ”I did it appropriately, I did it respectfully … my younger colleagues were getting most of the client [billable] work, which I can substantiate with these [work] utilisation reports.” …When she returned from six weeks’ sick leave, she said she discovered that Mr Jose had told her colleagues that she had an active WorkCover claim, which she regarded as a serious invasion of her privacy.

Ms Stransky alleged the partners who supervised her - including the former head of the Trade Practices Commission, Bob Baxt - excluded her and isolated her after she raised concerns about her career development with management in early 2008… Ms Stransky alleged that her coach and supervising partner, Chris Jose, spoke to her in an aggressive manner with cutting personal remarks on several occasions after she challenged the lack of work.

A psychiatrist’s report on Ms Stransky, commissioned by Freehills in late 2008, found she had a major depressive disorder with anxiety, panic attacks and features of traumatisation. The report described her as ”highly intelligent, open, honest [and] reliable”, and added, ”I had no reason to doubt the reliability, validity, veracity, accuracy or consistency of her account.” … Ms Stransky said she might never be able to work again as a result of the experience as she was still very ill.

How are working conditions in your office? Is your supervising partner aggressive?

Can anything be done to combat high levels of depression and anxiety within the legal prefession?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Some long overdue gossip from a Blake Dawson spy!

In early December last year we reported the rumour that Blake Dawson was tracking at a remarkable 20% over its budget. At that time we queried when the firm would unfreeze the pay of the 70% of staff (approx) whose wages have been steady for well over a year now, notwithstanding that the firm had made a 89 staff redundant.

Since that time, Freehills, Minter Ellison and Clayton Utz have all moved to unfreeze pay for some or all staff. So where does Blakes sit?

Well, if the information received by an anonymous Blakes spy last night is to be believed, wages will remain on ice for several months yet:

I wish to write on a matter of recent interest here at Blake Dawson. I was surprised to see that the Firm Spy is yet to report on it.

A couple of weeks ago, a meeting was held at Blake Dawson (Melbourne office) in which a partner - who I won’t name - asked those in attendance if there were any general queries about “issues” affecting Blakes staff. The partner was then promptly asked by a courageous colleague of mine “when is the firm intending to move on pay?”

This question has certainly been playing ont he minds of many Blakes staff recently and many of us were thankful that it was raised. However, no one in the room was satisfied with the response. The partner in question responded with “these decisions take time - it doesn’t happen overnight, but I think July 1 would be enough time to consider everything, how the market is moving etc”. In short, the response was a disgrace. What sort of modern corporate law firm “takes time” to make decisions?

The decision to make nearly 100 staff redundant was made quite quickly…

Yes, we recall the very abrupt sackings too.

Is your firm moving pn pay? Tell the Firm Spy first!

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

[ED - thanks to our good pals at Lawyers Weekly and The New Lawyer we can now report that a Blakes spokesperson confirmed that salary freezes will remain in place until 1 July 2010]

Deloitte had the highest number of women partners at 18.5 per cent, followed by PwC with 15.8 per cent and KPMG with 13 per cent.

… Deloitte chief executive giam swiegers said that leadership came from the top down. He said the firm would continue to have its targets but would not be drawn on what they were.

PwC chief executive Mark Johnson has set a goal that the firm reach 25 per cent women over the next five years. The firm has already raised the number of women partners 5 per cent in the last six years. “We do really well up to senior management grade - over 35 per cent of our directors are female. - but moving to partner is the challenge,” Mr Johnson said. “The reality is that we are losing some of our best people and we need to make sure we do better.”

KPMG chief executive Geoff Wilson agreed that the step between senior manager to partner is where the problem lies. “I suspect that transition point is an important point for everyone in their careers. That is a point where people are making decisions about pursuing flexibility… What we’re keen to do is to look at more creative models to enable that flexibility to include the firm in the longer term.”

Ernst & Young’s Australia CEO Gerard Dalbosco said the firm was not where it wanted to be but declined to provide numbers of women partners.