We understand that on 4 April 2011, a firm-wide AAR email was sent relating to the personal use of AAR email and reiterating all other firm policies on various misuses of position (we haven’t seen the text of the email, but we’re sure it makes for pretty yawn-worthy reading). Here’s the fun part: this email was apparently sent shortly after a support staff member from the firm’s Melbourne office was sacked for running a personal business (we are hearing rumours it was a conveyancing business) whilst at work and with the use of the AAR email address.
If this rumour is true, it is a bit ironic that a lowly secretary was treated with such a heavy hand, given the rather more lackadaisical response to recent high-profile allegations of email misuse currently prevailing at the firm. Well, the plot thickens apparently.
We received the following rumour from an anonymous AAR spy in response to our post:
My sources reveal that the employee did not run any business using the AAR system, totally untrue. That employee had in fact received the permission by the key person of the department they worked in and directly from the person for whom they worked for, to access external emails. The partner concerned who gave that permission has confirmed this to be the truth. Attempts by the partner concerned and others for whom this employee worked to preserve the employee’s position were unsuccessful.
Instead, that partner was called to be the firm’s representative in a meeting where the employee was told they had breached the firm’s computer usage policy and would be moved to another floor to work for a different partner and other operatives. Cannot make sense of that, but have confirmed this with my sources to be correct. Due to the employee’s total loyalty to the partner concerned and the closeness (and secret meetings) the employee decided rather to resign than work for another partner. After a long time of trust, loyalty, exemplary work, a rapport of the highest standard and the fact that this employee resigned the employee was barred from saying goodbye to colleagues and staff.
The same source went on to claim that the relevant ex-employee is considering their legal options in respect of their departure from the firm.
If you know more, send us an email at news@firmspy.com.
Loading...
Well based on previous “rumors” about AAR, this doesn’t come as any great shock. I sincerely hope the subject employee can get some closure… and maybe a big ‘ol fat-ass paycheque for her abuse!!
Allens should be held accountable for the way they treat staff. Rumours and emails that have been circulated around the office that have indicated that the secretary was asked to work for a female partner on a different floor and a male lawyer (both in the same department!!!). She chose to remain loyal to the partner for whom she worked and resigned. It is obvious how partners really have no say in this place. The partner obviously had no say. Looking at him over the last few weeks I would have to say that that is so obvious. This week when walking past the partner concerned’s office looking at him, the state of his office, it is very clear, how things are not running they way they were. I best not say any more as I still need my job!!
The question which must be asked is how she would not have been able to access her emails if she was on a different floor?
Although this is not the first time that the firm has done the wrong thing, this time is once to many. They should thnk twice about who is in management positions and the power given to them. Or is it a case that the firm can afford to lose such valuable staff members as it has done so in recent times. Having looked over a few departure lists over the last few weeks, Allens should ask why so many names on those lists, incidentally not just secretaries!! Clearly not a happy place.
I haven’t worked at AAR before but have heard plenty of stories around town at Friday drinks of Allens staff being treated outrageously. From what I gather, juniors are well and truly treated like complete crap and spend most of their time working late into the night doing completely meaningless tasks like reviewing boxes full of discovery documents.
In response to Un Be Lievable’s comment – it doesn’t surprise me that this partner doesn’t have any power. Of course, there used to be a time when parternship meant something, e.g owning part of the firm and being directly involved in the running of the firm. Nowdays, most partners are just another cog in the meat grinder. It is no wonder that so many of them are miserable and take it out on their staff.
Further to Anonymous’ post, so true. Young grads, lawyers and secretaries are truly treated like crap. You will often find staff lworking around the clock days on end. I have been fortunate not to have done to many long nights in my position, but all is forgotten with a blink of an eye when it comes to Allens giving back! Allens has lost its core elements of what made the firm what it was. I have not been at the firm for as long as some secretarial staff have but I have been there long enough to see how it has certainly deteriorated in the way it treats staff. Looking around at what is happening around the floors, it is crystal clear how people are so unhappy. One partner in the whole firm has demonstrated that he is not afraid of management and has the balls to stand up and tell them what they can do. We have an enormous amount of respect for him but he does not have the support of others. A partner was recently sacked for expressing his thoughts, so the others are scared!! That was kept pretty quiet! Allens should be held accountable for their wrongs and not allowed to cover up their mistakes when it comes to management. Interestingly, just the other day, there was a clear breach of protocol and procedures which would have been a sackable offence had it been anytone else, because it was someone in management, it was hush hush. BUT!!! it was found out and you can figure out the rest!!!
So the secretary gets fired but Michael Robinson just gets taken off the AAR website for a couple of weeks for an allegedly more serious misuse of email. How are AAR employees to understand what is or isn’t allowed.
I agree with Un Be Lievable but would further say that what seems to be going on at AAR though is happening right now in all of the big firms – the way that staff are treated at Minters, Mallesons and Clayton Utz isn’t that much better. All of the large firms have lost their core element – they have become sterile, profit making machines. Everyone in the machine (even partners) are fungible and when they burn out they are quickly replaced with another identical high achiever. It is only people who are part of the management board (or who have the favour of the board) that truly have power. Like assembly line employees, everyone else is just a producer of billable units.
Michael Robinson is still on AAR’s website and still very much doing what he was doing prior to the Acconex issue. This is not the first time that AAR has swept things under the carpet. There have been many issues which have been quickly hidden.
AAR should be made to answer.
Honestly, if you’re in law school seeking graduate positions – go through a mid tier firm, boutique practice or get a job with a sole practitioner. That way you’re likely to get exposed to a wide variety of work as opposed to going through rotations without having the time to learn something substantial in any one area.
Also, you will be saved from being treated like crap that has become synonymous with top tier firms. Save yourself the undignified sweatshop experience.
FirmSpy missed aim in today’s post about Redbubble and Hosking by decalring AAR in the clear. AAR is involved because it is still represented by its Consultant Michael Robinson on the Aconex board that Hosking is Chairman of. AAR could have terminated the Consultancy or asked their Consultant to step off the board. It did neither.
The one thing that AAR does best is know how to scramble the facts.
Michael Robinson continues to get a big fat pay cheque – consultant, director or partner!
Hardly suprising that the CEO Michael Rose purports to know nothing about the firm’s association with a client of the firm!
Is this how Michael Rose sells “transparency” to the lawyers and secretaries? There is nothing transparent about AAR when you look at the way it operates.
Ask Mr Rose if AAR upholds Chinese walls? Of course the firm does!!!! It is amazing how $700-$900 an hour are paid on a conflicted matter only to have the partners next to each other, print to the same printer and chat to each other about the matter all in the corridor where all ears are present! A recent conversation was overheard, one very young lawyer courageously asking whether that was the conflicted matter of —– the answer would be a sure giveaway! Suffice to say, so far that lawyer has not been sacked!