A few weeks ago we received the following comments from an anonymous spy:

Teakle Ormsby Conn has folded - I heard that Michael Conn may have been struck off and there are no or very few practising Solicitors available to sign off on any work. Staff apparently don’t actually know of Michael’s predicament and they all think that he will be back soon. For the moment, I’ve heard rumours they are fielding calls from angry clients, fellow practitioners and experts who are demanding money, work done on files, or waiting for responses.

Given the scarcity of reportage on this alleged collapse, we made this one of the rare instances that we

actually picked up the phone to call the firm to see whether we might corroborate the rumours. Unfortunately, no one answered our calls and therefore we cannot offer much more by way of background.

However, the following message currently appears on the Teakle Ormsby Conn website:

Legal Profession & Workers Compensation Amendment (Advertising) Regulation 2005

Teakle Ormsby Conn is unable to provide information regarding Personal Injury Law or Workers Compensation to anybody residing within New South Wales (NSW) or Queensland (QLD) - unless you are an existing client of Teakle Ormsby Conn.

If you are an existing client of Teakle Ormsby Conn residing within NSW or QLD, click here.

Otherwise, we apologise for any inconvenience but we are happy to answer any questions you may have - simply phone us on the number below or send your enquiry via email to teakle@teakle.com.au.

There can be little argument that there is something of a stigma attached to personal injury law. Even to the uninitiated it conjures images of suited lawyers chasing ambulances, although we concede that this is a more likely perception in the US,

What is certain, however, is that the repeated infractions and misbehaviours of domestic personal injury firms is doing little to enhance public perceptions of personal injury lawyers and, more broadly, perceptions of lawyers generally in Australia.

In little over 18 months the following things have happened:

• Brydens Compensation Lawyers was labelled “woeful” by the NSW Court of Appeal and was forced to foot the bill of three separate court hearings (yes - the FIRM had to pay costs!)

• repeated allegations were levelled at personal injury firm Keddies Lawyers that it overcharged clients and incurred unnecssary costs only to later bill them to a client;

• a male lawyer from Keddies Lawyers was convicted of assaulting a female police officer but not before exclaiming “I don’t have to do anything… I’m a solicitor!”;

• allegations were made that the CEO of Brydens Compensation Lawyers was embroiled in the Japanese Car Sale Harassment Debacle; and

• Hollywood has-been Erin Brokovich joined Shine Lawyers in an effort to drum up some publicity for the firm from mums and dads labouring under the misapprehension that she can help them win their personal injury case. Durrrrrr… she has no legal training and cannot practice here! Of course, this doesn’t stop the team at Shine placing the following advert on its website which we would characterise as seriously misleading to those thinking she would be handling their legal affairs:

Hi I’m Erin Brokovich

For over 15 years I’ve fought on behalf of innocent people who have suffered harm at the hands of irresponsible companies. Now I’m working with Shine Lawyers, a firm who shares my passion for taking on tough cases.

Shine Lawyers have been fighting for Australians just like you for over 30 years. I work with them and I trust them. They stand up for clients like you every day. They take this responsibility very seriously. Every aspect of their firm is geared toward ensuring you have a positive experience and achieve the best possible outcome – in and out of the courtroom.

If you need someone tough on your side in a legal battle please give them a call on 13 11 99 or email enquiries (at) shine.com.au.

Have we reached the point where we can’t start to make generalisations about personal injury lawyers in Australia? Will these perceptions/generalisations eventually become more deeply entrenched and thrust upon all lawyers alike, as they appear to have in the US?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

We reported last Friday a parliamentary question asked on notice to the Qld Minister for Health in which it was alleged that:

solicitors representing Qld Health … fabricated reasons in order to obtain an innocent man’s psychiatric and medical records [and]… deceived the Ombudsman and previous Health Minister, into believing they were ‘directly relevant’ to his wife’s medicolegal claim…

It was alleged in anonymous comments sent to us that the solicitors in question were Minter Ellison and that the partner in charge was Simon Alroe, a recently de-equitised partner of the firm.

In response to that post, we received the following comments from an anonymous ex-Minters spy:

I do not know anything about the dispute between Simon Alroe and Minter Ellison as it blew up after I left Minters. However, the Question on Notice relates to a matter in which I was personally involved. Simon signed the correspondence as he was the supervising partner. I can assure you that the records WERE directly relevant to this man’s wife’s medicolegal claim. Any suggestion of dishonesty or misleading conduct is incorrect. You ought to give this feedback as much prominence as your original story rather than tucking it away as a comment.

We trust this is prominent enough, however we would be obliged if further details about this “direct relevance” were sent to us so that the Firm Spy readership can pass judgment on whether an act of dishonesty or misleading conduct occurred. We urge Mr Alroe to contact us.

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

In the wake of the defection of 14 Clayton Utz partners to A&O earlier this year, we reported that a group of Clayton Utz lawyers met confidentially to discuss the demands they would place on the Clutz partnership to remain at the firm. At the time, we reckoned that many of the remaining lawyers were well placed to ask partners for an overdue pay rise. However, we never thought that the Clutz partnership would be so perturbed by the prospect of losing more lawyers that it would take the unprecedented step of awarding junior lawyers with senior associateship.

We received the following comments from anonymous Clayton Utz spies last week and over the weekend:

Dear Firmspy Yesterday I reported to you the seemingly *impossible* rumor circulating among polite circles that Clutz has promoted to SA a securitisation lawyer admitted December ‘08. Yes, DECEMBER ‘08! Well, Firmspy, as I tapped away at my computer, I could barely believe it myself. But I sent it anyway, with seemingly carefree abandon for the truth (you know what us Clutz lawyers are like!). But when I saw that you published it, I could feel the anticipation that your readers would now have not knowing if this was true. So I felt that I should try and find out more by way of details. So today I took it upon myself - between some value adding due diligence - to make some more enquiries and, to my sheer surprise and delight, it does appear that Clutz has its very own Australian idol. Our idol’s name is #######…. as A&O continues its ravenous bottom feeding on second tier (Clutz) finance lawyers, I am sure that you too are pondering this question - why didn’t our ####### join A&O. Is our ####### too good for A&O? You bet! Our ####### knows what fiduciary duties are (having learned about them at law school, rather than at Clutz) and is not one to sell himself to the highest bidder like some cheap hooker. This is not the last that you will hear of our ####### … Well done, you.

We then received this:

In answer to the posting on the CU promotions, yes it is true. Some of the new senior associates are 2 years PQE (the historical CU rule was 4 years minimum) and one of the new partners is 5 years PQE (it usually takes at least 8 to 10 years). The accelerated partner and lawyer promotions in Sydney were dominated by anyone who worked for the partners that left (i.e. those with negotiating leverage in Banking and Corporate). If you were just a hard working litigation or construction lawyer working 8 to 11 hours a day you did not quite have the same pull. I think I had better move to Banking and find a defecting partner to work for to get ahead!

And finally this:

As of 1 April 2010 a lawyer who was admitted in NSW on 10 October 2008 was promoted to Senior Associate at Clutz just because the remainder of his team (securitisation - structured capital markets) left to A&O (what a knuckle head, no pun intended!). With only 1 ½ years post admission experience and no prior law firm experience this lawyer has definitely done well for himself by remaining with Clutz. However, for the remaining Clutz Lawyers who in the recent promotions did not get promoted who have been with the firm for more than 4-5 years this is definitely unfair. Clutz did not reward this lawyer for his hard work, but rather are desperately trying to hold onto anything they can since the firms departures in that team to A&O.

Our anonymous sources neglect to mention that the junior lawyer in question may be exceptionally competent, and that this might warrant his incredible progression (but even then, we agree that it is unfair to more senior lawyers who haven’t been made up). However, from a client perspective, particularly in an area like securitisation where there is a whopping market surfeit of under-utilised  lawyers, would it be palatable to pay senior associate charge-out fees for someone with just over one year of post-qualification experience?

Does your firm ever lower the bar?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Ever since the incredible story broke that former Minter Ellison partner Simon Alroe had been arrested for allegedly harassing a colleague, we immediately looked for reasons to support his cause. Like you, we read the following news (reported by our great pals at Roll on Friday) with disbelief:

A partner Minter Ellison has apparently been arrested for allegedly harassing a colleague. Simon Alroe, a partner in the firm’s Brisbane office, was bailed by the local Magistrate’s Court last week. He was ordered to have no contact with Trent Forno, a fellow Minter Ellison partner, or with Forno’s family, and banned from visiting the firm’s offices

Bit by bit, new details on the saga emerged. At the outset, we revealed that Trent Forno and Ken Horsley, individuals apparently known in the industry as “Horny Horsley” and “Porno Forno”, were apparently influential in the de-equitisation of their former partner Alroe. At the time, we were particularly troubled by the revelation that Trent Forno professes expertise in employment law. Presumably Porno Forno would be well versed in precisely how to enforce his employment rights in a manner to secure the de-equitisation of a disliked fellow partner. Primarily for this reason, we decided to side with Alroe in this major corporate dispute and chuckled slightly when we discovered that he was suing the firm for in excess of $15,000,000.00.

However, our support is weakened slightly by the following groundbreaking revelation received from an anonymous Minter Ellison spy (thanks, by the way!):

A Question on Notice (No: 769) to Mr Paul Lucas, Dep Premier & Health Minister, has been placed on Qld Parliament web site for 15th April, 2010, and it is as follows: “Is the Deputy Premier aware of allegations that solicitors representing Qld Health have fabricated reasons in order to obtain an innocent man’s psychiatric and medical records, without his knowledge, and deceived the Ombudsman and previous Health Minister, into believing they were ‘directly relevant’ to his wife’s medicolegal claim and, if so, will he support a public inquiry?

It might be of interest to Firmspy that the law firm is Minter Ellison (Brisbane), and the principal solicitor in question is Simon Alroe. Will Alroe ultimately end up on the news headlines yet again? Basically, lying in order to obtain records, if proven, is Fraud.

We have since checked the Qld parliament website and can confirm that the above question on notice was asked of Mr Paul Lucas earlier this month. While we cannot confirm whether the allegations about Alroe are true, it is worth considering how this news (if true) would effect the reputation of Minter Ellison in the market, After all, it would appear that it was under the auspices of his former firm that Alroe allegedly procured the confidential records and his Minters might thus be vicariously liable (if the allegations are true).

Are government authorities charged with protecting the private information of individuals entitled to expect lawyers to act truthfully when requesting access to that private info?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

You probably all know by now that the Firm Spy has a certain soft spot for wanker corporate idioms. So we spat our coffee out with glee this morning as we thumbed our way through the current edition of BRW (21/4) to find a handful of Deloitte chief executive partner Giam Swiegers’ “favourite management mottos”.

The first one:

“try new things, but fail fast and fail cheaply.”

No wonder Deloitte allegedly has the following policy in relation to its firm-subsidised CA education policy:

if you fail 1 subject you get a warning, 2 subjects a written warning and 3… you’re fired!

Fail fast… and GET OUT! Giam’s second “management motto” also published in BRW is:

“soft on people, tough on performance.”

Yes, we certainly know about the “tough on performance” ethos Giam! We reported various rumours last year that Deloitte was systematically managing employees out of the firm, based on their performance. To this day, Mr Swiegers denies our allegations. As noted by BRW:

Deloitte maintains it made no mass retrenchments. Confronted by claims [presumably ours] that partners actively managed people out of the business during [the GFC] Swiegers: “I don’t have to answer to the outside world. I know what the facts are and a March survey of 2200 staff, half our total workforce, shows they believe I live up to my commitments.”

So… greater than 50% of the 50% of staff surveyed gave Giam “the commitment tick”? Congratulations Giam! This must mean you’re being true to your “tough on performance management motto”!

Rounding out Giam’s management mottos published in BRW is the following:

Leadership is not about taking people where they want to go, it’s about taking people where they should go. It’s not a popularity contest.

Hmmm … where is Giam’s leadership taking Deloitte staff? An article published by News yesterday suggested there will be a “mass exodus of unhappy accountants” in the near future:

A major revolt appears to be stirring among finance and accounting staff across the nation that could threaten a mass exodus from the industry … research by financial recruitment firm Robert Half found that 50 per cent of finance and accountancy staff planned to quit their jobs, and were either already seeking a new job or thinking about taking the plunge.

If this were a popularity contest, would it be fair to say Giam’s leadership is leading workers out the door? And those surveyed, are they the same 50% of Deloitte staff who were not invited to give Giam the “commitment tick”?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

You’ll recall that in the wake of firm-wide redundancies in March 2009, in which the firm laid off 89 staff, the Blake Dawson Wikipedia page was hijacked. The following comments briefly appeared on the page:

‘The partnership of Blake Dawson, the sixth-biggest law firm by revenue in 2008, is considering cutting up to 100 staff in a bid to slash costs and preserve profit. Blake Dawson is the first top tier law firm in Australia to announce anticipated redundancies during the 2009 economic downturn. While other major law firms Allens Arthur Robinson and Freehills have assured staff that there will be no redundancies, partners of Blake Dawson announced on 24 February 2008 that they would sack up to 100 staff instead of reducing their individual profit share. The firm’s partners receive an average of $850,000 each per annum.’

These comments were quickly removed, but the troubled Wikipedia page has yet again been altered, this time by hilarious references to a homosexual porn actor using the same name “Blake Dawson”:

In 2007 the firm underwent re-branding, and as part of this project, shortened its name to Blake Dawson ^[1]. The name change drew some attention from the local press and the Australian Financial Review, a respected business newspaper, published a story about a homosexual pornographic actor who shared the same name. Blake Dawson, the actor, featured in “The Diary” in 1982 and “Spring Semester” in 1985. The law firm still continued to proceed with the name change after the story was published.

Not only did the firm continue with the name change, but it collected a coveted award for doing so. Rebranding website www.rebrand.com considered the shortening of the firm’s name from Blake Dawson Waldron to Blake Dawson as one of the top 100 rebrandings of 2008! In the rebrand.com summary of the rebranding, the following is written:

Challenge - The firm wanted to stand out both for its excellence at law and for its distinctive personality.

Strategy - Principals created a new brand strategy, which centred around the theme “Excellence with Rapport”, a stand out look and feel…

Hmmm… we wonder whether like his corporate legal namesake, Blake Dawson the homosexual porn star also has a “brand” that has a “stand out look and feel”…

And we should thank our anonymous Blake Dawson (law firm) spy who tipped us off to the Wiki page with the following comments:

Checkout the wikipedia entry for Blake Dawson. There’s a new paragraph about how the firm shares its name with a gay porn star. The porn star name thing is old news but this is the first time it’s been mentioned in Wikipedia. Blake Dawson’s Wikipedia entry now looks pretty sad with the mention of porn stars and redundancies.

How does your firm “look and feel”?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

It has been a couple of months since the Legal Affairs team at the AFR have had a decent scoop, so we took our collective hats off on Friday at the massive revelation that Clayton Utz is pursuing mastermind defector Grant Fuzi for a breach of fiduciary duties arising from his move to competitor Allen & Overy.

If you missed the AFR article, the following summary was sent to us by an anonymous spy (thanks very much!):

Read on infoXpress this morning… Clayton Utz - Allen & Overy - Grant Fuzi - Case - Clayton Utz is set to prepare a case against former partner Grant Fuzi alleging that he lied about his intent to join Allen & Overy before leaving Clayton Utz, and breached his fiduciary duty. Mr Fuzi allegedly accepted a $700,000 payout on the condition that he would not go to a competitor. - AFR 45

Then another anonymous spy sent us the following request:

Please write about Clayton Utz’s upcoming suit against the Australian A&O partners, including Grant Fuzi, for breach of fiduciary duty. Would love to hear more goss in this regard.

So what do we know? Well, the following very insightful comments were sent to us last night by an anonymous Clayton Utz spy (this is a truly excellent update, so thanks) which help inform the Clutz motivation to pursue the Fuz Ball:

CU is not just bleeding it is haemorrhaging with its lawyers following their partners to A&O in unprecedented numbers. That’s the real story behind CU’s action against Grant Fuzi, as reported in the AFR on Friday -a desperate attempt to stem a tide which started well before Mr Fuzi departed and an attempt to prevent other groups suffering the fate of its Workplace Relations and Banking and Finance groups. In Banking and Finance the blood started with the departures of securitisation guru Brain Salter and his partners Trevor Robinson and Leah Chic in 2008 (as reported in the IFLR). In Workplace Relations it started with Chris Hartigan and his client John Holland, who moved to Herbert Greer in 2008, followed by Louise Russell, Luci Mumme and her team.  Next to depart were John Oakes and his team in Sydney, followed by Luke Connolly in Melbourne and most recently Bruce Heddle in Sydney. As a result, although embarrassingly, the Clayton Utz website still proclaims that its Workplace Relations group is ranked Tier 1 by the Asia Pacific Legal 500, but that’s incorrect. A quick click reveals that the firm is now ranked Tier 2, as it is in Banking and Finance. The exodus doesn’t stop there either. While the Legal 500 reports that Peter Knight retired, Chambers Global reports that he has moved across to Banki Haddock Fiora and then there was Richard Morrison in Canberra.. That’s another 11 partners. CU hasn’t replaced any of these people it has just promoted a few people… I’m sure you can find a few more.

Forget about finding more, what about the potentially misleading and deceptive proclamations on the Clayton Utz website?! Perhaps Mr Fuzi might find something useful there for the purposes of defending the forthcoming equitable proceedings…

Which brings us to another very interesting rumour sent to us over the weekend regarding this explosive story:

I thought the Firm Spy might like to know how Grant Fuzi intends to defend against the action being brought against him by his former employer Clayton Utz. I’m told that he intends to rely on the very tenuous argument that he did not technically leave Clayton Utz to work for a “competitor” - and was thus entitled to the $700,000 payout - because A&O wasn’t competing with Clayton Utz for work at the time of his defection. Mind you, if the retarded manner in which the firm is currently handling its PR affairs is an indication of its legal competence, I wouldn’t be surprised if the restraint of trade clause was so narrowly drafted as to permit him to defect and pocket the money!

We wouldn’t be surprised either. And it would make another dark chapter in a forgettable year for the firm in which:

• 14 very profitable, well respected partners defected from the firm to build two Australian offices of Magic Circle firm Allen & Overy;
• the firm sacked over 30% of its Melbourne graduates;
• a former employee has been given leave to pursue further claims against the firm for alleged sexual harassment and bullying;
• the firm was stripped of its credentials as an employer of choice for women by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency; and
• a librarian has created considerable controversy by hording an inordinate amount of firm fruit.

What will happen next? Share your views by voting in our new poll!

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

In March we reported that Nicole Stransky had brought an action against her former employer Freehills claiming that she had been bullied and harassed at work in 2008 and 2009. She alleged the firm discriminated against her on the basis of her age, employment activity and her mental impairment which resulted in her developing suicidal thoughts and a general deterioration in her mental health.

As reported by The Age at the time:

…she said the problems started once she spoke to human resources in April and May 2008 and told them that younger colleagues were getting more work and that she was being excluded by her partners. ”I did it appropriately, I did it respectfully … my younger colleagues were getting most of the client [billable] work, which I can substantiate with these [work] utilisation reports.” …

This case has now been settled by Freehills with Ms Stransky for an undisclosed sum. What is interesting to note, however, is that this appears not to be the first time that Ms Stransky has brought proceedings against a former employer based on the amount of work received (either that, or there are two Nicole Stranskys in Melbourne).

Thanks to the anonymous spy who sent us the following link. In 2004, Nicole Stransky initiated proceedings against another former employer Melbourne Inner City Management Pty Ltd. We take the following quotes from the decision in Nicole Stransky v Melbourne Inner City Management Pty Ltd:

[1] On 24 November 2003 Ms Nicole Stransky (the Applicant) lodged an application pursuant to s.170CE of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act), claiming her employer, Melbourne Inner City Management Pty Ltd (the Respondent) had harshly, unjustly or unreasonably terminated her employment. It was alleged that the Applicant’s number of working hours had been substantially reduced having the effect, due to the consequent significant reduction in the Applicant’s remuneration, of terminating her employment with the Respondent.

[2] The Respondent moved for the dismissal of the application for want of jurisdiction, contending that there had been no termination of the Applicant’s employment by the employer.

[6] The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent on 12 October 2002 on a casual basis providing administrative support for the Respondent’s property leasing business at various of its city and near city site offices. The Applicant was required, inter alia, to fulfill the role of receptionist at times and in locations at which the permanent receptionist was rostered off or was for other reasons absent. The Respondent maintains a pool of casual staff to provide such coverage across its sites.

[9] With the exception of the first month of her employment when the Applicant worked only seven (7) hours for reasons that are not obvious but perhaps because rosters were already settled for that month, the Applicant regularly worked in excess of thirty hours per calendar month with an average for the period of her employment of approximately forty-two (42) hours per month.

[14] The November roster was issued by Ms Jones on 29 October 2003. The roster provided for only two shifts to be worked by the Applicant during November. The majority of shifts falling on days which the Applicant had worked for a number of months prior to November had been allocated to another casual employee in the November roster. The Applicant claims not to have been consulted or advised prior to the roster’s release of this change to what she claims was her regular shift allocation. The Applicant had not advised of ‘non-availability’ for the shifts falling on days of the week she was accustomed to working.

[15] The Applicant emailed Ms Jones on the day of the November roster’s release ‘expressing my dismay particularly as I had advised her that I would like to continue my regular shifts’ (Exhibit A1). The Applicant further requested advice as to the availability of alternative regular shifts.

[18] The Applicant responded to becoming aware of the updated November roster by sending an email to certain senior Company personnel on the afternoon of 11 November 2003 expressing her dissatisfaction with events that had occurred in relation to rostering and stating that she wished to remain in the Respondent’s employ. Subsequently Ms Jones telephoned the Applicant offering her work for a single shift on 17 November. The Applicant declined the offer on the basis of unavailability.

[19] Of the two shifts for which she was rostered for November the Applicant did not work on 3 November due to illness and 7 November was the last shift the Applicant worked for the Respondent. The Applicant was rostered to work no further shifts for the Respondent in ensuing months and her name was removed from the bottom of the roster document as a possible contact for site offices to fill shifts on an emergency basis.

[22] The Applicant claims that her employment with the Respondent was terminated harshly, unjustly or unreasonably by the Respondent with effect from 7 November 2003 and seeks an order requiring the Respondent to pay an amount in lieu of reinstatement pursuant to s.170CH(6) of the Act.

The Deputy President hearing the dispute ultimately agreed with Stransky and she was awarded a whopping $2,522 for her hardship. Any guesses what Freehills threw her way?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

The emergence of key international firms in the domestic market has been a key development in 2010. We’ve seen the merger of Deacons with UK silver circle firm Norton Rose and the arrival of Allen & Overy in Sydney & Perth. Although most commentators are characterising the arrival of A&O as nothing more than Clayton Utz in disguise (ie without the thoroughly negative connotations being levelled at the firm, based a host of reasons), it is hard to not to reflect on how these two key developments in the domestic market will influence the shape of things to come.

To this end, we reported mid last year the rumour that DLA Phillips Fox would be seeking a full integration with its international affiliate at some stage in 2010. Despite being given the opportunity the opportunity recently in BRW to dispense with the rumours new Chief Executive Partner Tony Holland chose not to. Tony, a project finance partner, had ironically not had a chance to “go over the financials” of the intergration.

In that post we also reported on the major influx of Middle Eastern DLA partners to DLAPH. It is against this backdrop that the following rumour was sent to us from an anonymous DLAPH spy. If it is true, it would amount to a peculiar and reprehensible episode of “biting the hand that feeds you”:

Tony Holland was enticed from his position as deputy chairman at MSJ in 2008 by DLA Dubai (and ex-MSJ) partners. He was paid a fortune. Problem was, DLA Dubai had one client in Nakheel and was a sinking ship. The partners who brought Tony across have been sacked by DLA now. Tony saw the writing on the wall and got himself a plush job back in Melb as the new Phillips Fox Chairman. His game plan is to sever all ties with all Phillips Fox firms in Australia & New Zealand except Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The rest can go jump!

After this, he wants to get rid of a heap of partners who are not in corporate or finance - ie turn Phillips Fox into another MSJ. Then, and only then, will Sir Nigel at DLA give the nod to the full merger. There are some very dodgey ex MSJ partners in Dubai and Abu Dhabi who have no clients or practice and have been given notice. They are nervously waiting for Tony to proceeed with his plans and to get jobs with Phillips Fox pre-merger, so they can be a part of his plans.

Hmmm… it is all starting to become a bit clearer (if the spy above is to be believed). First Tony returned to Oz. Then the DLAPH Adelaide office gained its financial independence… what next?

If you know more, tell the FIrm Spy first.

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!