Great work by our friends at Lawyers Weekly getting the following comments out of Michael Mitchell – the figure at the centre of claims Clayton Utz sexual misconduct:
NSW case law clearly states that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine if there is substance to an allegation prior to a substantive hearing’ (Ehl v. Department of Education and Training) Therefore, it was deeply troubling that the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board dismissed all of my complaints as being without a substantive basis prior to a substantive hearing, especially considering that the President did not explain his reasons in any way. Following the President’s decision, Clayton Utz’s legal counsel Kate Easton argued that in order for me to be granted leave to pursue my complaint, I was required to demonstrate to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal that my complaint, was an “obviously meritable complaint,” and I was obviously successful in doing this, as the ADT granted me leave to pursue multiple complaints of sexual harassment, disability discrimination and victimization against Clayton Utz. Considering that leave is granted in only a handful of occasions each year, the ADT’s decision to grant me leave is very satisfying.
We find the result extremely satisfying too Mike. We are particularly excited to hear how the allegation that a colleague once told you that “solicitors could take paralegals home for sex” plays out in court.
But more than that, we look forward to a measure of justice being delivered to the firm that is rumoured to have:
- dodged graduates on pay;
- implemented a “Claytons” redundancy scheme;
- imposed involuntary leaves of absence; and
- underhandedly introduced a pay freeze.
So good luck Mike, and please, let the Firm Spy be your friend as this saga unfolds.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
