ClizzoBridgetz amply demonstrates that the truth is sometimes much, much stranger than fiction. We could write a thrilling novel about this saga, we seriously could. But instead, we’ve spent the weekend whittling it down to 2,428 words. We hope you’ll enjoy.
The Scoop
Late Thursday we received an email the text of which stated “Styles has settled. Stay tuned.” And tuned we stayed only to receive, in 24 hours, a dozen or so additional notifications of substantially the same kind. Thanks everyone for keeping us informed. We were also sent the Official Media Release, which, apparently, was the final bone of contention between the parties and over which much wrangling was fought.
Ex-HCA Justice Michael McHugh held a mediation between the parties last Tuesday. If one of Australia’s pre-eminent legal minds couldn’t bring an end to this dispute, who could?
Congratulations to The Hon. McHugh (and to Darryl McDonough himself) for eliciting the following comment from Clutz’s CEP in the official media release:
I am pleased we were able to reach a settlement with Ms Styles. During her time at the firm, Ms Styles demonstrated that she has very good legal skills. We wish her well in her legal career.
“Well” is precisely how Ms Styles appears to be going: she missed the making of final orders in both the defamation proceeding (297774 of 2009) and the sexual harassment/victimisation/intentional tort proceeding (66430 of 2011) because she was appearing as a barrister in another case. Ms Styles completed the NSW Bar Association Bar Practice Course in October 2011.
So how was agreement reached? We think the eminent mediator would have drawn the parties’ attention to a few things in particular.
The Cases For & Against – How Mediation Occurred
The ClizzoBridgetz Burrito Dick Montage, exclusively revealed by Firm Spy a couple of weeks ago, was cause of some hardline legal wrangling in the months prior to the settlement. The Montage ultimately led to the publication of some highly interesting judicial reasons, in the process exposing some even murkier (if that’s possible) allegations between Bridgette Styles and her former firm. We thought that, given the finalisation of the dispute, an analysis of Justice McCallum’s decision was warranted. It offers a painfully candid insight into what life might be like at Clayton Utz if Bridgette Styles’ allegations had ultimately been proven, but also shows the arguably tough stance Justice McCallum was taking to Ms Styles’ interlocutory applications.
The Manwhore Email
According to the reasons published in Styles v Clayton Utz (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1219, Ms Styles sought to amend her Amended Statement of Claim to include, inter alia, reference to an email sent from Clayton Utz Senior Associate Luis Izzo’s email account. The email allegedly stated:
a. / have an intranet photograph to die for;
b. / am THE Italian Stallion:
c. / have the best hair in all of Sydney;
d. if I see you in the lift, I’ll grace you with a head nod…But please don’t come up to me at work drinks – I’ll just pretend I don’t know you;
e. in metro-manwhoreness, Luis “Greasy” Izzo, Solicitor/ Workplace Relations/Clayton Utz.
And with the context in mind, let’s move onto Ms Styles’ lost applications.
The Lost Applications
Firstly, a short update regarding a decision published by Justice McCallum, but inexplicably unavailable to be viewed via regular search engines: Styles v Clayton Utz [2011] NSWSC 1022. It appears Justice McCallum granted leave in that application for Ms Styles to amend her pleadings and to file an Amended & Consolidated Statement of Claim in the sexual harassment proceedings. Having been granted leave, Ms Styles filed the amended and consolidated pleading, but at the same time sought leave to again amend it, a move that was hotly contested by Clutz and led to Styles v Clayton Utz (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1219.
Ms Styles’ sexual harassment claim was founded, in part, on the display in her former Clutz office of (1) a montage of photographs of Clutz lawyer Mr Luis Izzo containing various captions (referred to by us as “The Burrito Dick Montage”): and (2) a framed photograph of the same fellow. What became clear as a result of Justice McCallum’s decision is that it was previously uncertain whether, in relation to (1) The Burrito Dick Montage, Ms Styles was alleging:
- it was so intrinsically offensive in its own right to amount to amount to sexual harassment; or
- it formed part of a broader context within which the sexual harassment took place.
That question appears to have been complicated by Ms Styles’ Counsel who confirmed when questioned by Justice McCallum on the issue that The Burrito Dick Montage was intrinsically sexualised, capable of grounding a claim of sexual harassment in its own right. However, Ms Styles’ new application sought to amend her pleading so as to allege that The Burrito Dick Montage formed part of a broader context within which sexual harassment took place (ie No. 2 above) but nevertheless that, of itself, and with the benefit of particulars to be inserted into her pleading, it was in any event sufficiently offensive of itself to base the sexual harassment allegations (ie attempting to plead (1) and (2) in the proposed amendment).
[11] “Paragraph 25 of the proposed amended pleading addressed the montage, providing a series of contentions as to ways in which it was alleged to be a sexualised portrayal of Mr Izzo.”
25A The Montage appeared to the plaintiff to be a joke lampooning Izzo’s reputation within the Sydney Office as a man who had slept with a number of colleagues.
Particulars
The plaintiff drew this conclusion based on her observations that:
(i) Izzo’s reputation, as a Casanova, was based on his conduct in boasting about having slept with colleagues including her:
(ii) the Montage was located outside her office:
(iii) the Montage contained no apparent reference to Izzo’s work as a solicitor;
(iv) the Montage contained, instead, a text bubble stating: “[We're] pretty sure there’s a lot more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good looking [Luis] We hope you plan on figuring out what that is”; and
(v) the Montage contained a photograph of Izzo making what the plaintiff understood to be a sexualised hand gesture:
Particulars
The hand gesture is formed by extending the index and little fingers while holding the middle and ring fingers down with the thumb.
The Rock Horns? Of course, Gene Simmons’ outstretched hand on the cover of Love Gun!! That cheeky rock-devil! But what did Clutz have to say about the rock-horns grounding a claim for sexual harrassment?
Well, Counsel for Clayton Utz contended that an essential element of the claim being brought by Ms Styles is the need to establish that the conduct complained of (ie the creation of The Burrito Dick Montage) “in fact be conduct of a sexual nature in relation to [Ms Styles] [19]” (our emphasis). Justice McCallum eventually agreed with Counsel for Clutz that Ms Styles had failed to adequately plead that The Burrito Dick Montage, of itself and without the surrounding context, was ”conduct of a sexual nature”. Said her Honour:
[27] “that allegation [as pleaded] imports matters extrinsic to the montage and is not based on the appearance of the montage itself.”
Bad news for Ms Styles, but … here is where things got juicy, juicy like a sopping wet burrito!
You see, leave was also sought by Ms Styles to insert another paragraph into her amended pleading in relation to the (2) framed photograph of Luis Izzo. Said her Honour:
[11] “The framed photograph was addressed in paragraph 27(h) of the proposed amended pleading, which alleged that the photograph “was understood to have sexual connotations within the Workplace Relations Group” of Clayton Utz.
That contention was, in turn, sought to be sustained by reference to two emails circulated within that group. Specifically, Ms Styles sought leave to insert the following paragraph into her amended pleading:
The framed photograph:
(ff) was perceived by the plaintiff to be a joke of a sexual nature, implying she was “in love” with Izzo, because people generally only keep, in expensive looking photograph frames in their offices, flattering portraits of adults whom they “love,” namely their romantic partners or spouses.
Justice McCallum refused to accept [30] that the display of an “anodyne photograph” could amount to conduct of a sexual nature. Having failed to satisfy this gateway provision, Justice McCallum nevertheless took a walk through the prayer for relief which included reference to the “Manwhore Email” extracted above. We’re hosting a full copy of the amended pleading here.
Judicial Intervention & The Narrowing Dispute
For what it’s worth, we found it interesting that Justice McCallum took the stance above with respect to Ms Styles’ application to amend her pleading. It is notorious that some barristers face difficulty in attempting to state each material fact that, if proven, will make out the claim for which they seek redress. Here we see an attempt by Counsel for Ms Styles which failed.
Consistent with recent trends, Justice McCallum took a relatively interventionalist approach in refusing to accept that the “material fact” of a photograph in a frame of an individual Ms Styles had sex with could, of itself, amount to conduct of a sexual nature. Likewise, the Montage of Mr Izzo, which, by the sounds of it, contained at least one arguably graphic image, was dismissed by her Honour as incapable of supporting an assertion that it was sexual conduct in relation to Ms Styles.
Having lost the application, Ms Styles had a considerably narrower scope to argue in respect of the 64430/11 dispute. As we’ve already written at length, her intentional tort claim would probably have been a test case, leaving just the victimisation limb and the separate defamation proceeding (297774/09). Both of these latter causes of action would have required the testimony of many of Ms Styles’ former colleagues who, presumably, would have had ample motivation to testify in a manner that coalesced with the designs of their employer.
We imagine The Hon. McHugh would have clarified these issues with Ms Styles at length last Tuesday, perhaps partially explaining how settlement was eventually reached.
The Public Shame, The Young Gun & The Early Christmas
But let’s not forget the bargain from the Clayton Utz perspective. Certainly, there is enough in the deal to warrant a six-figure payment. In the first place, there is a full stop on a saga that was listed for a six week trial early next year. The firm was being represented by Freehills, so, even to the exclusion of resources being utilised within the firm, by settling the dispute now we are looking at a saving that we conservatively estimate would exceed seven figures. But if we include resources within Clayton Utz itself, remembering of course that the entire partnership were named as defendants in one of the proceedings, we’re looking (we think) at several million bucks. Just to let it go away.
In monetary terms, by settling, Clutz will probably net a saving of a few million in unrecoverable legal expenses. Not a bad deal, by any stretch.
It will also retain the services of Luis Izzo, who, despite his alleged intra-office promiscuity (and in the man’s defence – let’s face it, there are cavalier pantsmen in all corporate offices), is undoubtedly regarded by his superiors as a high-achieving young lawyer. Indeed, Mr Izzo was elevated to Senior Associate despite the allegations associated with ClizzoBridgetz. Not to mention, again in spite of ClizzoBridgetz, his very recent hosting of a CLE seminar held by the Blue Mountains Regional Law Society on – of all the possible topics – “Misbehaving or Poorly Performing Employees”. So, in arresting the dispute at this arguably belated stage, Clayton Utz has been able to quarantine a clearly valued employee from any further public scrutiny and save a few million to boot!
Of course, it also goes without saying, that by settling Clizzobridgetz Clayton Utz is bringing to an end a PR Nightmare of epic proportions. Indeed, on both sides of the dispute, there were clearly compelling reasons to cave.
Final Thoughts
So where does this leave us? Well, we’ve got two individuals whose careers are at least partially restored. We’ve got Bridgette Styles who is commencing work as a barrister and Luis Izzo who will continue to work as a Senior Associate at Clutz. We sincerely wish them both the best of luck as they move forward.
Less clear is where this leaves Clayton Utz. We have remained baffled that the firm allowed this dispute to continue for as long as it did. On the one hand, there is the business imperative to ensure the firm isn’t recklessly paying out on unmeritorious legal claims – a flood of similar claims could be instituted by other disaffected employees. On the other hand, there is the enduring legacy that is left when a firm is embroiled in proceedings. Law firms should be representing parties in proceedings, not appearing as a party. One would have thought this message was made plain by the McCabe document shredding incident.
As always, we invite your views below. This is your last chance.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
PS – if anyone has Ms Styles’ email address, please send it to us – news@firmspy.com
Loading...
It is embarrassing for all involved. It is pretty simple – do not act like a knob and life will proceed relatively painlessly.
This saga has given Styles career at the bar a boost before she even starts.
A blessing in disguise…
“[Clayton Utz] will also retain the services of Luis Izzo, who, despite his alleged intra-office promiscuity (and in the man’s defence – let’s face it, there are cavalier pantsmen in all corporate offices), is undoubtedly regarded by his superiors as a high-achieving young lawyer.”
As usual, the woman involved gets shafted and the man gets to keep his job, protected by the male partners around him.
Firm Spy, there’s enough sexism in law firms without you adding to it by excusing Luis Izzo as just a pantsman, who (cue the subtext) was having a bit of fun.
It seem nothing changes – either amongst the boys’ club in law firms or amongst the male writers who report on them.
There seems to be a theme in recent posts regarding the treatment of females in professional services firms in general. Clutz and BDO should get together and compare notes, because from what i read, i don’t think BDO will get off as lightly as Clutz
They could have settled very early. As FS points out the legal and PR toll involved with settling now is substantial.
So, why the delay? Pride? Machoism? Boys club? Not being commercially minded?
Whatever the reason, I hope the partners think it was worth it.
While six figures may sound like a lot, I wonder how much she will actually have left after paying her legal fees. This should have been settled a lot earlier – Clutz would have avoided much embarassment, and she may have ended up with an amount of money that wasn’t that dissimilar to the amount she will have left after paying her legal fees.
Let’s hope that everyone has learnt a lesson from this and will think twice before doing stupid things at work.
“… she has good legal skills”
Not a glowing endorsement, but i guess you probably take what you can get. That statement was probably the most fought over part of the media release and a concession unwillingly given by Clutz.
Anon @ 6.25 -
I have no doubt the 6 figure settlement incorporated her legal fees in full.
Peter – surely the most obvious answer is that her settlement demands were too much for them to agree to at the start?
As FS notes, no firm can just open the cheque book to avoid bad publicity every time they get sued – otherwise every disgruntled employee will be lining up with their hand out.
anonutz – 2.40pm
Really? They pay out 6 figures on top of a hill of Freehills legal fees and a mountain of bad publicity. And that is commercial behaviour in their one of their fields of practice? Stop digging.
Completely agree with the author of ‘Boys club never dies’. Luis Izzo sounds like a an arrogant creep from the emails and the things he stuck around her desk and I’m surprise anyone would want to sleep with him or promote him with that kind of behaviour.
Who cares about the legal fees she paid! Even if the legal expenses put her out of pocket she should be commended for putting this guy in his place and standing up for herself.
she is hot
http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/sexism-case-dropped-as-lawyer-reaches-settlement-with-former-employer-20111129-1o53k.html
“It is difficult to decide whether it is more surprising that the remarks were made at all (after over a century of feminism) or that a lawyer recorded them in an email (after over seven centuries of subpoenas).”
Fascinating reading. Even if Styles is a nutter, (and if so she’s a nutter with balls) why would Utz let such a grubby matter drag on and on with smoke, if not fire around? For the sake of what cannot be much more than $100k between settlement sum and her claim? They may have a judgement issue, like Luis it seems.
Of course girls are “sluts” and boys are to be commended for getting one away, and I suppose if that is their mindset they probably think it was worth defending.
At least the statement from Utz suggests a sense of humour, although I won’t be answering any of their job ads.
Article now on smh http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sexism-case-dropped-as-lawyer-reaches-settlement-with-former-employer-20111129-1o53k.html
In particular, Ms Styles quoted emails sent by Mr Izzo from his work email address to friends outside Clayton Utz, in which he talks about ”crazy single female chicks” who ”just need a good f— to get them back to normal”.
In another email, in December 2008, Mr Izzo referred to women in human resources as ”pussies”.
She walked away with basically nothing, the six figures represented her legal fees to date (counsel are expensive). Everyone knows this.
That email made my stomach churn. How embarrassing for him.
Peter – so no matter what amount she was seeking, they should have just paid up?
I just read the SMH article and it sounds like a PR nightmare for the firm. Im shocked by the sexist things Izzo said and that Facebook group! its just terrible and i will never be applying to that firm for a job.
Totally agree…. what a pr*ck…. and stupid as well to write emails of that nature! Very surprised he was promoted while all of this was going on, and I doubt he will ever be able to get a job at another top tier firm so it looks like all his poor colleagues are stuck with him!
She had to settle!! Her claim sounded pretty weak – a few photos posted in the office etc. CU should have settled much earlier but she would have made no money at all after costs.
”crazy single female chicks” who ”just need a good f— to get them back to normal”?
For mine, the first part definitely applies, but clearly Luis’s practical application of the second part did not have the suggested effect.
R u serious!! ‘Crazy single female chicks who just need a good f*** to get them back to normal’…. how can you even encourage that kind of attitude towards the opposite sex.
so I’m guessing firm spy is written by a few losers who couldn’t get a clerkship…or better yet, have been “managed out” of a mid-tier?
great cut-and-paste job on the judgment too. maybe firm spy could join styles in crazy chick chambers
Calm down steph!! i don’t think styles is crazy… she was dismissed unfairly and has every right to pursue the issue further. For the record numerous talented lawyers quit top tier law firms….
Steph.. wouldn’t happen to work for clayton utz’s would you??
Im surprised by all the hostility towards Styles. Calling her crazy seems a bit harsh especially given her dismissal and the evidence given in the form of the email. It seems she had every right to take the issue further
Steph = firm lackey.
What potential client would take their business to CU when there are myriad other firms to take your business to – and CU tolerates an employee referring to young females as “crazy single female chicks” who ”just need a good f— to get them back to normal”.
CU may produce good work but they have a terrible image problem. Seriously who would want to be associated with them with their image.
anonutz
Away with your strawman. Of course initial claims are set at their highest and best to allow for negotiation. Litigation 101.
The law firm should have used their expertise as litigation lawyers and negotiators and settled early. Its not as if they are a carpet cleaning firm. They profess to be experts in the field.
Am encouraged by the number of positive responses on this issue to my earlier post.
Granted, everyone should behave responsibly at work but if people do stuff up, it’s archaic to apply one standard of behaviour to the man involved and another to the woman.
They’ve both done the hard yards at uni and they both need to earn a living so his career is no more important than hers.
It’s also great to see Bridgette Styles’ fiance, Nick standing by her side in the photo posted by FS. Presumably they became engaged while her litigation was in play? I’ve not met either of them but it looks like Bridgette has found a decent and loyal man.
Nick, you have a fan. Best wishes to you both.
fiancee nick – don’t ever try to leave
I would like to question whether there is serious cultural problem at Clayton Utz. How does one firm have so many “PR disasters”?
I think everyone would accept the proposition that for every story that finds its way into the media, there are 10 or 20 more that we never get to hear about. The sexual harassment claims, shredding documents for tobacco companies, telling expert witnesses what to write in their reports, etc. How are these behaviors tolerated? Why are the perpetrators promoted? This appears to be symptomatic of a deeply entrenched arrogance and a boys-club environment that could potentially benefit from having some women in senior management positions.
I imagine this has been a rather embarassing week for Mr Izzo. Also, after reading other articles on this, was anyone else a little creeped out that they had printed off photos from her flikr account when she went into her interview? It’s one thing to google people, but an entirely different matter to print off photos and comment on them!
Steph is obviously a graduate at Clayton Utz…and maybe a little bit in love with Izzo?
I find it awful that Clayton Utz held a presentation yesterday for Govt clients in Canberra at which Mr Izzo was one of the key speakers – smacks of arrogance and support of the “boys” – most of the people in my department didn’t go simply because it seemed to be in poor taste to be rolling out Izzo so soon after such an event. That being said I blame the partners of Clayton Utz equally – they shouldn’t support this behaviour and they certainly shouldn’t be publicly supporting Izzo so closely after the event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOT4bDJfn0k
Really, that’s dreadful. They should hide him away somewhere…. next they will be taking him to a function on gender equality!
I appreciate that it will never really be known what exactly happened between Styles and Izzo, but the emails can’t be denied and he should have been sacked for sending them.
“Please note, the characters displayed in this animation are fictitious. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is coincidental.”
Love it.
She is hot – take my hate off to Izzo.
Bunny boiler
crazy?…maybe, maybe not… crazy hot?… definitely
http://www.news.com.au/national/bridgette-styles-finding-the-strength-to-fight-back-after-clayton-utz-sex-discrimination-case/story-e6frfkvr-1226212782019
Thanking your dead grandmother for reaching a settlement indicates that you’re off your rocker. Off to the bar with all the other weirdos!
Get real
Posted December 4, 2011 at 12:22 PM
Thanking your dead grandmother for reaching a settlement indicates that you’re off your rocker. Off to the bar with all the other weirdos!
———————
Is your misreporting of the news article wilful?
CU are a shocking firm and I would not work in their Brisbane office if I was paid the amount of this settlement sum! They have a reputation of suing their employees (and forrmer ones), and starving their senior associates of work
When they don’t have the balls to just let them go. Grow up CU, and hey don’t shred this bit of evidence.
Rory Moriarty is moving to norton rose! Another CU Sydney partner leaves. No surprise there given CU behavior. Would work the steets
Before taking a job at that hell hole.
@Cuntyutz – think you’re going to find a bit of harassment on the streets too…
But have fun working them. Your sense for the hyperbolic shall serve you well.
@”@Cuntyutz” you should apply for a job at
Clutz (unless you already work there) – your sense for being a dick shall serve you well.
Rory Moriarty is a young gun, a young E & R partner.
Izzo is an employment lawyer who works for a partner
No comment yet on whether Mr Izzard remains with Clutz? Investigate, FS!
Merits of the discrimination aspect of the case aside (it seems she may have had very valuable adverse action rights), its extremely disappointing that a mega firm no doubt with graduate recruitment program, structured training requirements, polices and procedures on appropriate workplace behaviour, etc would churn out a male solicitor of this character.
Izzo’s prehistoric attitude towards women is mind blowing, but his imbecilic action in committing his views to writing takes the cake. I find it very hard to believe this man can be a good lawyer and one worthy of his employer pumping exorbitant fees into the bottomless Freehills tank to defend his reputation. Izzo, when you get shafted for an “unrelated reason” in a few months, you should probably hang your head in shame and go quietly. But you will probably make a claim of your own, and I look forward to reading about it in the rags.
If the claim was as smear campaign and an opportunity for fifteen minutes of fame, it worked. I think its unlikely that Styles makes it at the NSW bar. Many firms won’t be took keen to brief her after this weird affair. She comes across as neurotic and weird.
It will be a long time until Clayton Utz wins any equal opportunity employer awards.
I look forward to the next episode.
@Razor – you’ve got to try and find some other things to fill your life with … you’re going to burst a blood vessel the way you’re going!
She whipped up the media and got $50, no-one cares, life moves on.
@Razor: She’ll probably do very well at the bar if that’s how you perceive her to be. The best counsel tend to be very eccentric.
So has Izzo got the best hair in Canberra?
One thing is for certain Mr Izzo’s career should be coming to an end shortly with Clutz having sent those emails. Can’t see to many firms taking him on so he might have to join the Bar as well.
I think Bridgette is an idiot for sleeping with a male collegue within her team. Having said that, if I made that mistake and was then harassed at work for it, I’d be really pissed off that after having raised the issue, I was fired…. Not sure if that makes her overly deserving of a payout though because she sort of brought it upon herself ….
The workplace relations department (pardon the pun) of CU seems to have a particularly bad reputation in the way it treats its staff members and given the area they practice in they would undoubtedly have a hold on the human resources department as well. They seem to have a cull system for non-sychophantic team members and that includes partners. Who knows if this girl is a “nutter” as some are portraying her but even if she is you would wonder why the firm didn’t pay to silence her like they routinely do. Embarrassing that their private business has been aired but more embarrassing for the firm given the department they worked in. Obviously they need to practice what they preach.