Brisbane mid-sized firm Forbes Dowling has taken a novel, if slightly peculiar, approach to distinguishing itself in the QLD legal space. Front and centre on the firm’s homepage is a fellow with a short back and sides, staring quizzically into the BrisVegan distance (pictured below). What on Earth the pensive fellow is staring at, we can’t be sure, but the truly confounding aspect of the pic is the climactic conditions that warranted the winter jacket and the popping of the winter collar. A Brisbane winter freeze, perhaps? Or is it the spine-tingling chill of knowing that a stalker is on the loose?
With all these questions circulating, one thing is sure – the at folks at Fo-Do could have chosen a more appropriate advertising slogan than:
Make an informed decision.
Indeed, the uninformative advertising of the firm’s litigation services makes it difficult for prospective litigants to make an informed decision about retaining Forbes Dowling:
Our lawyers have extensive litigation knowledge with over 75 years post-admission experience.
Presumably we’re not talking about 75 second-year lawyers, but how can a potential customer be sure? How can they make an informed decision? Well, it turns out, some of the Forbes Dowling lawyers themselves appear unable to make informed decisions, certainly if our anonymous Forbes Dowling spy it to be believed:
Like Hynes, Forbes Dowling in Brisbane is having a partnership blow up in the SC. BS9111/11 – Malcolm Robinson and Daine Locke starting their own place. Losing Robinson would be a loss for them but not Locke. There’s an affidavit of Shane Budden on the court file, who works for the BSA. Robinson has done all the BSA work for years. Looks like he was intending to take that with him…
An esearch of the court file (available here) reveals that there is certainly a major partnership spat going on:
File No: 9111/11:
Parties: Forbes Dowling Lawyers Pty Ltd v Malcolm Robinson & Ors
Proceeding Type: Restraining Orders – s359F
Date Filed: 7/10/2011
The “Ors” named in the proceeding are Dain Locke and Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers Pty Ltd. When we Googled “s359F” we landed here:
Criminal Code 1899 – Sect 359F
359F Court may restrain unlawful stalking
So, if our unsubstantiated guess is correct, is sounds like the partners (either or both) of Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers are alleged to have been stalking Forbes Dowling Lawyers. But it couldn’t be Malcolm Robinson because he’s still listed as a Forbes Dowling lawyer, or Dain Locke for that matter (check out his profile here). Certainly not a great display of informed decision-making, that’s for sure. But who is stalking who?
Know more? Drop us an email news@firmspy.com
Loading...
The managing partner, who said he was stepping down as a partner in this judgment
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2009/QSC09-292.pdf
clearly has a very unique interpretation of the law at the best of times. maybe he just picked the wrong section? or is he trying to use the criminal code as a blunt instrument…’injunction’ doesnt sound as dramatic, or defamatory, as ‘criminal stalking’
Both have always been decent blokes.
Good luck to each of them. Hope that they see sense and settle and move on.
Mal was doing BSA work for years. No chance to retain. Again, move on
What’s the bet a numpty at the courts registry simply saw the words “restrain” in the prayer for relief, and assumed it meant a criminal restraining order.