Ladies and gentlemen, the ClizzoBridgetz juggernaught rolls on!
Since we last broke ground on the country’s most sordid, most rotten law-firm sex affair, the story has picked up some sound bites (above) a name and a virus. Yes, ClizzoBridge has gone viral. We counted two feature articles in The Daily Telegraph, two similar (and very popular) articles on news.com.au, and an excellent opinion article in The Sydney Morning Herald, followed by a feature article on the saga a day later by the same publication (also syndicated in The Age). Oops … that’s Australia’s two biggest newspaper publishers, but incredibly, the story spreads even further.
Channel 10 sent a reporter to observe proceedings and his report was one of the first few stories broadcast in the station’s nightly news bulletin last week. Here is a transcript:
Channel 10 Sydney Studio (with Deborah Knight and Bill Woods)
Law firm Clayton Utz is being rocked by a sexual harassment case involving claims against 6 solicitors. A young woman says she was sacked after complaining that a failed office romance had led to her being victimised at work.
At the Court (John Mill reporting)
Bridgette Styles is an attractive lawyer who turned heads at Clayton Utz when she worked there in 2005. But now Ms Styles is claiming Clayton Utz is a place hostile to women. And on the 15th floor of this Sydney tower the case is rocking the major national law firm to the core. Hundreds of partners are named in the action. Bridgette Styles is claiming she was victimised after an office romance with lawyer Luis Izzo went sour and the pair was embroiled in a workplace web of innuendo. Justice Lucy McCallum said she understood the case was that:
“he was telling people they had sex before they had sex, then they had sex, then she found out and got upset”.
The whole saga got blown wide open during a night of drinking at Ryan’s bar in September 2008. The former lovers quarrelled: she accused him of sexual harassment; he told the law firm and they launched an investigation. Clayton Utz’s lawyer Bruce Hodgkinson SC said:
“a great deal of of behaviour has … been carried out on Facebook, email and text message.”
The Clayton Utz investigation found no evidence of sexual harassment. Ms Styles was sacked after adverse findings about her conduct. The law firm denies the claims. Bridgette Styles says she wants damages and an apology and she’s [Mr Izzo] for defamation.
Bridgette Styles … alleges that a workplace environment hostile to women targeted her for retaliation after she threatened to complain to Clayton Utz management about the solicitor’s confuct after the romance ended.
The Channel 10 claim that the case is “rocking the firm to its core” definitely accords with the things our sources are telling us:
I hear that clayton utz canberra office is having a serious meltdown – a number of staff in the commercial area have gone on stress leave due to being over worked and bullied – apparently there are also serious work quality issues being raised by clients.
Another observer emailed us with the following comments:
It seems, incredibly, that Clayton Utz is running the Styles case when they could have settled it for less than $1000 per partner. That’s less than cost of an electricity bill for a family home in Western Sydney. According to news.com apparently Styles is claiming $200 000 – divided by the 200+ partners of Clayton Utz that’s less than $1000 each. If I was one of those 200+ partners, not to mention a client, or one of the employees involved, I’d be demanding answers.
Do you think Clutz partners should have settled for $1000 each? How do you regard the legal advice ostensibly given by one (or more) of the Clutz dispute resolution partners to the rest of the partnership to litigate ClizzoBridgetz? Do you throw it in the same basket as the advice to shred documents in the McCabe affair?
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
did the 3rd last quote really contain the word “confuct” or was that just a freudian slip?
I hope McCallum J’s written work is more lucid than her oral pronouncements. “[H]e was telling people they had sex before they had sex, then they had sex, then she found out and got upset”. Apart from the suggestion that Ms Styles wasn’t aware that she’d had sex with Mr Izzo (“then they had sex, then she found out”) this isn’t really up there with gems like “In discharging its duty to declare the common law of Australia, this Court is not free to adopt rules that accord with contemporary notions of justice and human rights if their adoption would fracture the skeleton of principle which gives the body of our law its shape and internal consistency… Although our law is the prisoner of its history, it is not now bound by decisions of courts in the hierarchy of an Empire then concerned with the development of its colonies.”
Why is Phil quoting from Mabo? Had a few beers, mate?
You’d think in a place like Clayton Utz – even in the grad kindy pool – they’d be smart enough to realise that acceptable work boundaries apply there too, but sadly the combatants must be subscribers to the view that once you’ve made it into Clayton Utz grad kindy, the rules don’t apply to you and you’re above mere plebs working elsewhere. I mean ‘photo montages’ and ‘facebook insults’? Sounds like riveting stuff undertaken with a keen eye to professional development. No wonder Clayton Utz are too proud to pay $1k/partner. PS I loved the ‘confuct’.
Isn’t this all about Bridgetz Clizzo?
I know this site prides itself on sailing close to the wind, but publishing that comment about Clayton Utz canberra is seriously inflammatory. Claims of bullying (based on an anonymous email), people on stress leave and – in particular – claims of client complaints about work quality is a bit much. I presume you receive lots of complaints about poor work quality by lawyers (disgruntled clients etc) that you don’t publish, for good reason – why publish this just because its a claim about a different office of a firm involved in an unrelated case?
So, we now have a picture of Luis Izzo.
We can say he is ageing well. I note the accurate edges on his eyebrows – where his mono would otherwise be – so he seems to spend time grooming them. He would have been earning considerably more than Bridgette Styles, and would be favoured by the partners because he would be a more useful asset, generating higher revenue than would Bridgette Styles. His looks, earning capacity, and good relationships with some partners may have all been appealing factors to Bridgette Styles’ conducting of an affair with him.
For Clutz, it would be a reputational battle more than anything else. They would spend a million dollars on legal fees and gamble for a chance of winning.
I’m completely outraged and distressed about these rather eyebrow raising goings on.
How about she just not sleep with him in the first place? Don’t put yourself in the position and this doesn’t happen. I have slept with 4 of the 15 guys in my group without incident. I spend so much time in the office where else will I get relief?
May god speed you in your sexual endeavours, Scuttle.
Scuttle,
I would assume the equivalent of Borat’s hand relief should be one way.
I agree, clients must have such serious concerns about the work quality at Clayton Utz Canberra. So much so that they got named “Best ACT Firm at the 2011 BRW Client Choice Awards”.
ha! best firm in the ACT – that makes me laugh… would be interesting to know how much work Clutz actually does in the ACT (rather than Commonwealth) market – from what I hear the reputation in the Commonwealth is somewhat less than glowing (more tarnished than anything)
. . . and we all know how important an indicator of quality awards such as the “BRW Client Choice Awards” happen to be. In fact, I decide where to send my legal work solely on the basis of such awards . . .
haters gonna hate.
Props to Channel 10. Awesome piece of journalism. Is there some document destruction in the pipeline, Mr Mill?
@ Think Again “why publish this just because it’s a claim about a different office of a firm involved in an unrelated case?”
Different Office? Er Think Again. Izzo appears to spends a fair amount of time in the ACT (representing the government) and as for bullying being unrelated, sexual harassment is a form of workplace bullying: http://bully-free-zone.com/?p=1330
http://www.safetyinaustralia.com.au/safety-news/6572-act-employers-must-act-now-on-workplace-privacy.html
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1WSSzW-zcbwJ:asutax.asn.au/web/%3Fp%3D337+%22luis+izzo%22+and+canberra&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au
Negotiations Start Again after Fair Work Australia hearing
Jul 14 2011 Published by ASU Tax under ATO Agreement 2011
Dear Colleague
The ASU made progress in bringing forward the negotiations for the new ATO Enterprise Agreement and in focusing the agenda of discussions on pay. Negotiations now resume on Monday, 18 July from 1 – 5 in Canberra. David Diment will lead the ATO’s bargaining reps at this meeting. The unions need to provide the ATO with any requests for information and any agenda items by 5.00 pm today, so the ATO can prepare their responses.
Conduct of the Hearing and Conference
The Hearing before Vice President Lawler in Fair Work Australia in Melbourne commenced at 10.30 on Tuesday, 12 July. The ATO’s solicitor, Luis Izzo from Clayton Utz, had to apply for permission to represent the ATO at the Hearing.
596 Representation by lawyers and paid agents
(2) FWA may grant permission for a person to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent in a matter before FWA only if:
(a) it would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter; or
Mr Izzo explained that the ATO needed to get the results of its random survey of staff before it could resume negotiations. He also suggested there were issues of evidence in relation to the ASU’s claim the ATO had breached the fair bargaining rules in refusing to forward our report on ‘affordability’ to all employees in accordance with our agreement. The Vice President refused permission on the basis the issues were not complex. However Mr Izzo was allowed to remain at the bar table to advise the ATO’s representative on presenting its case.
Don’t know about you, but I would… Bridget is quite a fine piece…