The dispute has captivated the entire Australian corporate community based purely on its salaciousness. Words like “man-whore” and “slut” pique the interest of most newspaper readers, but this is undoubtedly the case for bored office-drones like us.
However, the PR headache nightmare runs much deeper than that. Styles v Clayton Utz has afforded to any client considering the use of Clayton Utz professional services an insight into what in our opinion, if even half of Ms Styles’ allegations are later proven true, amounts to deeply entrenched cultural issues that stretch from the top down. And this doesn’t even get us to what grads and laterals must now think about a career at the firm. So yeah, PR “headache” does no justice to this scandal of epic proportions.
As we see it, junior lawyers across this country feel helpless to change the workplace behaviour of their superiors precisely because of the set of facts alleged by Brigette Styles to have occurred at her former firm Clayton Utz.
- Lawyer feels victimised.
- Lawsyer seeks to address perceived victimisation.
- Lawyer has employment terminated and risks forever being tarnished as a “troublemaker”.
No one has the gumption to be “that” lawyer who takes a stand and fights to uphold their view on what is acceptable workplace behaviour. The stakes are just too high: the lawyer (already a very risk-averse person) risks losing the job/stature that took them 5 years of intense university study and 1-2 years of PQE “on the clock” to acquire. They also risk their professional future in an industry where everyone knows everything about everyone else.
But we think there is a chance Styles v Clayton Utz can change that. And we say that before anyone even knows the result of the trial (it is currently part heard). Why? Because despite this highly publicised litigation, Bridgette Styles is thriving as a lawyer at another major Australian law firm. Well, so say our sources. This is important to note because, as we noted above, the fear of being “that” lawyer who will be forever unemployable for having the courage of their convictions is apparently unfounded in this case — her continued professional success is evidence of that. So cheers to you Bridgette, on behalf of the FS team – we hope the courage you’ve shown will embolden other junior lawyers to stand up for themselves.
The story started when one of our tipsters spoke with Bridgette Styles at her new workplace to ask her about a rumour they had heard regarding her and her former firm Clayton Utz. At this stage, not a single media outlet had seized on the story. A shocked, and later tearful, Ms Styles begged us to delay the publication of our initial article to give her time to tell her boss about the case and to receive the Maddocks Prize for Labour Law at Sydney University (photo above). We obliged.
Four days later, our friends at Roll on Friday published this story – the first of any legal affairs source.
Not that there is likely any of our readers who are unfamiliar with the facts as alleged in this case, but they were succinctly expressed by the AFR on Friday:
…she filed a claim alleging she’d lost her job after making complaints about another Clutz lawyer she was “romantically involved” with. That lawyer, colleague Luis Izzo, allegedly made disparaging remarks to Styles and told fellow lawyers they had had a “one-night stand”. Clutz says it’s more a case of Styles acting in a belligerent manner towards Izzo, including such colourful names as “slut” and “man-whore”, and stated he had “slept with every girl in the firm”.
What the AFR neglected to mention in its article (probably because it makes the story much less juicy for its Hearsay section, as well as for us) is that Ms Styles vehemently denies having used the “colouful names” mentioned above. Part of the part-heard application is an application by Ms Styles to strike out the paragraphs from which those allegations are taken – namely paras 13(a) and 16(a) of the Defence in the victimization proceedings – on the grounds they are irrelevant and embarrassing in the legal sense and not justified by the particulars which have been provided by Clayton Utz. And if Ms Styles was not belligerent towards Mr Izzo… well, it might be said that the grounds relied upon by Clayton Utz to terminate her employment were less arguable. But we’ll wait for the verdict on that one.
Having said that, we wanted to take this opportunity to publish several allegations from anonymous Clayton Utz spies regarding their workplace that would, in our view, turn most level-headed folks in belligerent name-callers.
First this (from this post):
I wanted to write to Firm Spy, as I am absolutely appalled by how our Chief Executive Partner and Chief Operations Partner decided that all the shared services employees now have to wear name badges. Mind you it is only half of the shared services employees that received a name badges. As far as I am concerned, this is discrimination, harassment and it also goes against the firms core values (honest, integrity, fair treatment and mutual respect, regardless of your role or position in the way we treat each other and do business). All employees are meant to be treated equally and this can only be seen as a case of the legal staff not wanting to form relationships with shared services staff.
I don’t know if it is national … Shared services should mean all non-lawyers, however, they have only targeted catering/reception, facilities, records management, office services and print-room. There is a fair majority of staff in these departments that are refusing to wear them, as they feel the same. If the lawyers want to know who they are talking too – just ask. We make the effort to know them, they should show the same respect. If everyone within the firm (lawyers and non-lawyers) had to wear them, this would not be a problem, as there would be no discrimination.
One commenter wrote the following in relation to those comments:
Does this mean that CU lawyers will now need to look in your general direction when addressing you? That in itself will be sending shockwaves through the firm. No doubt another “hands on” policy thought up by the workplace relations department – you know the discriminatory non-discrimination department
Finally, we received this comment via email last week from another anonymous Clutz tipster:
I just read the post about shared services wearing name tags. I worked at the Sydney Clutz office for 11 months last year in the mail room (office services) and within that period there were so few lawyers who even bothered to acknowledge me, let alone learn my name. It was so incredibly offensive when this happened, and it happened every day. The culture in the Sydney office is something that those partners should be ashamed of. I’m pretty sure my own boss didn’t know who I was, given that she never introduced herself to me or even smiled at me, it’s ridiculous! Glad to know that I’m not the only person who feels this way about Clutz.
Feeling belligerent? Let us know.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
UPDATE – 9:50pm 23/06/2011
Below is what appears to be a highly humourous article from our friends at Justinian.
Justinian Wednesday 15 June
Around the firms…Clutz’ document retention policy thriving…
Clayton Utz is no stranger to disappearing documents. It was at the heart of the strife surrounding the firm’s defence of the Batty Boys in the Rolah McCabe Case. The Same problem has emerged in the sexual harassment and defamation case former employed solicitor Bridgette Styles has brought against the law shop. On the first day of a preliminary hearing before Justice Lucy MCallum on 7 June it emerged that Clutz has lost an important piece of evidence ”in an office move.” Styles had a brief relationship with another solicitor, Luis Izzo. She claims that as a consequence she was harassed by crude japes, snide remarks and scuttlebutt that flew around the law factory. Joe Catanzariti former prez of the NSW Law ‘n’ Order Society and now a grand fromage at the Law Council, was the partner in charge of their section. Shortly after Izzo wrote a file note to Catanzariti, Styles was escorted from the office and then terminated for “performance issues.” One of the taunting messages the plaintiff received from mocking colleagues was a montage of images of Izzo placed near her desk with the hilarious caption, “I’m nice to look at.” The Montage has vanished. Could it be another victim of the Orwellian document retention policy?
We really like Justinian, but we don’t have access to the subscription-based stuff. Check them out here if you dont get enough goss from us.
Loading...
I heard through the grapevine that Styles is taking the bar.
This is a great story, and all true. Bridgette, you have the courage of a lioness and it would have been an honour and a privilege to have met you whilst I myself worked there. Be in no doubt that the fight will be just as nasty as when they’re not their own client. Their fabricated reputation is everything to them, not least for the reason that some of their largest Government clients have it in their contract that there is no Bridgette in their closet (no guesses why they weren’t chosen for the Defence sexual allegations inquiry). Those clients need to bring this pressure to bear on Clutz to mea culpa and then to change.
Definitely the courage of a lion – good for your Bridgette.
Of the two lawyers involved (Styles and Izzo) why does she automatically get believed and given moral support and he is assumed to be lying?
If she is lying, then she behaved in an unprofessional manner and lost her job: justice is (approximately) done. If he is lying, then he has abused his position, and Clayton Utz has supported him in this: there is a wrong to be redressed.
So I think it’s unfair to automatically assume that he is lying – but if he is, then the consequences are much more significant.
For lawyers between 1 – 4 years (senior lawyer) Clayton Utz is a crap firm to work for.
It is well known that Clayton Utz treats their staff poorly. Overworked and underpaid lawyers.
People get fired all the time at Clayton Utz, but whether people know the real reason for why a lawyer has left the firm is a mystery to others.
If you want to work in law firm, do so but don’t walk into Clayton Utz if you want a miserable time/life.
Can anyone confirm whether Mr Luis Izzo is aesthetically pleasing? I note reports mentioning Ms Bridgette Styles was romantically involved…
Luis Izzo – I have a pic of him with another female who worked at Clutz, strangely enough. Yes he seemed to have spread himself around. His perogative I guess. Golden haired boy of the firm and under the wing of a certain partner there. I am not sure you can blame the individuals but clearly the firm is dysfunctional in the way that most of them are. I know of similar cases in this firm and in the same workplace group and with the same partner. It all starts from the top, you better believe it!
@Anon who said “Of the two lawyers involved (Styles and Izzo) why does she automatically get believed and given moral support and he is assumed to be lying?” He was automatically believed and given moral support at Clutz. She was sacked and he was given a premature promotion to SA. Why don’t you throw the unfairness of that into the mix?
One news report said the partner threw his support behind Mr Izzo after he said he would not return to the Workplace Relations group from rotation if Ms Styles was in that group. Clutz has had a terrible name as an employer of young solicitors since at least the early 1980s. It definitely seems to be a problem with the firm’s “culture”.
I dont think this article is about FS expressing a view on whether Izzo or Styles should win the case, or “automatically believing” and giving “moral support” to styles. It is about FS expressing the hope that styles’ courage may pave the way for others to fight for change. I don’t think the end result of the case is the story here – the story is that individual juniors can exert improbable power over superiors by raking a stand. Who knows, if a few more of us took a leaf out of Styles’ book we might not have to work every second weekend on the equivalent hourly wage of a check-out chick
I am pleased that these law firms are finally getting what has been long coming to them. I can only hope these types of cases will instigate changes for the better of us all and empower people to not only speak out but command better working conditions through their own actions.
Law firms need to face up to the fact that their appalling treatment of staff and unachievable expectations do not cut it in this day and age. The office is not a mens’ or womens’ club or a sweat shop.
I cannot fathom why these morons (with all the degrees in the world..) cannot understand that if you treat your people with respect, provide good work conditions which reward efficiency over ‘face-time’ and permit people to have a personality and a life outside of work, they may be more inclined to work hard and do well for your business. Lawyers are generally high achievers who thrive on intellectual challenges and getting the job done, yes? Yet, the partners in these places treat us all like idiots (and perhaps some of us are, when you think about what we put up with…). I mean, I walk out and have a lunch break with my friends and if I am not jammed with a major transaction, I leave at 5 but I wave to all the suckers as I go.
Unfortunately, FS could not have confirmed the position of young professionals more succinctly. We feel absolutely helpless to change the horrendous workplace culture that is rife is law firms and other professional services firms too. Anyone who has a backbone, isnt a drone and doesn’t submit to the bullying tactics (they call it ‘people management’ etc) is singled out and walked out the door.
I’m surprised Cluts got rid of her. She looks the perfect image of the young female corporate lawyer in that photo. Normally big firms pride themselves in having young solictors like this running around to keep the older partners’ and clients’ pulses racing.
@amused – I can always pick the Mallies grads in the cafes near us. They have exactly the look you’re talking about.
I usually see them for a few months and then no more. I’m not sure if they’ve moved on, are to “busy” to get out for a sambo, or have been killed, cooked, canned and shipped off to some foreign country to be eaten as a delicacy!
all this publicity can’t be good for her long-term future – this may become the thing that she is famous for
she’d be well advised to stay out of the public eye
Surely a serious prospective lawyer should not buckle at a bit of bullying? Maybe not the right career…
As for who is lying – maybe, as is usually the case, the truth is somewhere in between
I think the father & son relationship between Luis Izzo and Joe Catanzariti can be found in the surnames ‘Izzo’ and ‘Catanzariti’.
Calabrese, anyone?
Have you considered the possibility that they noticed you leering at them in the cafe and decided to go somewhere else?
A bit late for a comment but…why on earth would any female lawyer think it’s a good idea to sleep with a colleague/anyone in their firm? Particularly one who already has a reputation for being a sleazebag?
I feel sorry for all the messiness that Bridgette is being put through but, seriously, what was she thinking?! This isn’t even a case of “hindsight being a marvellous thing”; it’s more like “common sense isn’t common”.
Whether or not she it telling the truth has yet to be determined.
I presume she probably is- why else would she be prepared to endure the type of cross examination that she will be subject to and not just ‘bury it’, particularly seeing as her career appears to have moved on.
Clutz has a well earned reputation for fighting hard- not the least when their reputation is on the line.
If she is telling the truth It is good to see that she has had the courage to take a stand as the fall out will doubtlessly benefit others in a way that such tokenism as Reg 42 training does not.
It is also pleasing that she has moved on to another ‘quality firm’, and her career, despite the notoriety, does not appear to have suffered. I wish her well.
She is not claiming that she slept with him but had a “romantic involvement”, it was he that claimed that she slept with him in a “one night stand”, not doubt to boost his “conquering prowl” to the others. I tend to believe Bridgette than Luis as there has been more and more people witnessing to the old boy club upend thinking at Clayton Utz. Also why would she risk her new job if she was in the wrong?? She had more to lose than them. So logically it was she that is mistreated big time and there are plenty of people that can vouch her mistreatment. Clayton Utz is going down!!
Lying? If she is Lying why is she Lying? whats the motive? think about it for a moment…
To bring a case like this before a judge and sue for $200 000 in damages, one would think she has evidence… how can she have evidence to launch a case of this magnatude and not have evidence therefore that in itself suggests that she is not lying…. if you think im wrong here please say so….