An anonymous Mallesons spy, purporting to be a current seasonal clerk, this week sent us the following blurrycam snap of a photo apparently in the client foyer of its Melbourne office:
What, exactly, is it?
We don’t know. However, we sincerely hope Mallesons isn’t going down the path of using compromising photos of yougsters as “art”. This sort of behaviour calls to mind that bizarro Aussie artist Bill Henson who controversially photographed a nude 13yo girl and called the gallery “Private View”. All in the name of “art”, of course.
Are you the girl in this photo? Did you consent to the photo being taken?
The reason we ask is, well, a couple of years ago, Victoria introduced laws to criminalise certain unauthorised lewd snaps, and we think this photo (if unauthorised) goes close to breaking those laws. According to the SMH:
Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls today said his counterparts in other states had endorsed his campaign for a national approach towards people who take lewd photographs without the knowledge of their victims.
“There is a general view that the practice of “upskirting” – the use of cameras, in particular pen cameras or mobile phone cameras to take photos under a person’s clothing without their authorisation – is totally inappropriate,” Mr Hulls told reporters at a meeting of Australia’s attorneys in Melbourne today.
Do you think a photo of a female’s bare legs/crotch-region is an appropriate first image for clients to see when entering their law firm’s offices? What if it’s… “artistic”?
If you are a seasonal clerk who wants to report questionable firm behaviour, send an email to news@firmspy.com!
Loading...
)
Sure this isn’t just the sign for the women’s toilets?
Surely no-one could be offended by that picture?
It might not be good art, but it certainly isn’t perverted.
Yes, this photo definitely appears on level 50. Or at least it did when I was there. I remember thinking it was inappropriate, but so were many others in the gallery
There also is (or used to be) a great photo of Kim Beazley holding a machine gun. Not my idea of the most appropriate corporate art work!
Yes, Firm Spy, I am the girl in the photo, and no, I did not consent to my crotch being plastered all over Mallesons offices!
How on Earth did it get there? And why, out of all the crotches out there, did. Mallesons choose mine?
Help me get my life back Firm Spy
Oh for Christ’s sake Firmspy! You really can be quite tedious sometimes. On level 50 there is a gallery of works by Matthew Sleeth, a contemporary visual artist. They’re pretty damn good – and a nice distraction from the otherwise ineffably corporate look of the client floor.
This is really ridiculous.
re ‘Distressed’ – “Yes, Firm Spy, I am the girl in the photo, and no, I did not consent to my crotch being plastered all over Mallesons offices!
How on Earth did it get there? And why, out of all the crotches out there, did. Mallesons choose mine?
Help me get my life back Firm Spy”
the photo FEET#5 was taken in Tokyo in 2002
What’s ridiculous is Mallesons’ poor commitment to contemporary art in the work environment. If lawyers are allowed to identify and examine issues on the boundaries of the law on a daily basis, then why can’t artists do so as well? The Matthew Sleeth works are the only works of art I have been exposed to at Mallesons for the past several years and it is about time that the firm recognised the value of challenging their lawyers with more contemporary works of art.
@Mallesons Lawyer/Art Appreciator: It’s easier and cheaper to rotate the lawyers than the art.