The Melbourne University Law Students’ Society is rumoured to be in a state of crisis this week after revelations the committee’s Women’s Officers recently resigned their office just days before the annual Women In The Law Breakfast was due to be held. Firm Spy understands that the decision of the officers to quit their post came after months of hostility between the two females behind the Women’s Officer role and the LSS President, Simon Breheny, who is alleged to have questioned the relevance of the portfolio at a time when females dominate the University’s gratuate intake gender divide. The breakfast was, by all accounts, a huge success despite the controversy.
One anonymous tipster wrote:
Simon has been a particularly unpopular president this year due to his pro-Liberal arch-conservative positions on many issues. For instance, he has attempted to abolish the Women’s Officer portfolio, on the ground that women now make up the majority of the law student population so should no longer be entitled to any extra privileges.
These hostilities were brought into focus over the last few weeks when it emerged that Mr Breheny was intending to submit for re-election as LSS president in 2012. Firm Spy was informed that LSS presidents customarily only serve one term and if Mr Breheny were re-elected, he would have been the first to do so in the history of the Melb Uni LSS. Upon being contacted by FS, Mr Breheny withdrew from the election campaign and later acknowledged it was “a hoax”.
When we contacted Mr Breheny, who we understand has accepted a grad position at AAR in its 2013 graduate intake, we also asked him to respond to some of the criticisms of his leadership, in particular the alleged attempt to abolish the Women’s Officer portfolio. He responded:
I’ve had some issues with the Women’s Officers this year, especially after I was accidentally sent an email referring to me, which stated ‘F*** off jerk’. As far as I’m aware, it is true that females make up a majority of students at the law school.
We pressed Mr Breheny for further details of his opinion, but Mr Breheny declined to comment. Serendipitously, however, we received the following comments from an “anonymous tipster” one day later:
Dear Firmspy,
My firm is an Employer of Choice for Women. We have all sorts of career seminars for female lawyers, wine and cheese nights for women, lunches, meet female directors nights and other stuff.
More than half the grads are female.
More than half the lawyers are female.
More than half the senior associates are female.
Many of the young partners are female.
Which is great.
Except I’m a bloke.
There are no special career nights for me, no wine and cheese tasting, and no meet the directors (male or female directors for that matter). I feel a bit left out. Is there a tipping point where young male lawyers will start to wonder about their career choices? Can Firmspy recommend any Employers of Choice for Men? Or do you just invert the Employers of Choice for Women list?
The anonymous tipster, together with Mr Breheny, appear to have touched on a live issue; namely, with females now making up the majority of junior lawyers across Australia, is the pertinence of Women-In-The-Law initiatives waning? Our own view is that the kind of criticism we see above is premature: on average, only 20.4% of the partnerships of Australia’s top 33 law firms by revenue are female (AFR 25/06/2010). Until we see more equality in the gender of partners, the core mandate of Women’s Officers at univerisity and Women-In-The-Law initiatives more generally will in our view continue to be highly relevant. We invite your views in the comments.
Update: one commentator wrote:
Regardless of the gender split between males and females at law school, it is clear that these events (which are aimed at building networks and assisting in careers AFTER law school) are still needed.
The statistics re female partnership numbers are completely woeful. Clayton Utz recently released an annual report which broke down the number of male and female lawyers at the graduate, lawyer, SA/SC and partner levels. Female lawyers far outweighed male lawyers right up to the SA level. Then the women all seemed to magically disappear when it came to partnership.
The womens groups within law firms tend to be a token effort by firms and sometimes seem to only be formed to allow the firm to get their employer of choice for women certification (although I don’t think Clayton Utz even has that anymore).
So to anonymous tipster in the article complaining about his firm not having anything special for the blokes – clearly it is not affecting your ability to get to the top anyway, so I wouldn’t worry about it. In fact, the stats seem to suggest that you have far better chances of making partner if there are fewer males at your level to compete with. If it ever gets to the point that female partners vastly outweigh the male partners, I would have no objections to you setting up a men’s group.
And a final comment re the number of females at law school and getting grad positions. University entry largely comes down to your academic score. I don’t think guys can claim discrimination on that front. As for grad positions, in my experience, the females tend to perform better during interviews and during clerkships than the males. I’m not sure why, but the guys have a tendancy to come across as either socially awkward or arrogant. Girls tend to present more “middle of the road” and fit in better with the teams. So maybe law schools should run a few sessions aimed at the guys on how to come across better when applying for grad positions.
Apparently some people at Melb Uni agree too. We received the following intel last week:
D’oh!
The University of Melbourne’s premiere Faculty of Law event, its Women In The Law Breakfast, is in a state of disarray. The Women’s Officers who were supposed to be MCing the event [ED: we have since received email confirmation that this was not the case - the girls concerned were not going to MC the event] have quit in protest over his handling of the crusially important Women’s Officer portfolio.
The Breakfast, which boasted County Court Judge Felicity Hampel as a keynote speaker, was organised to be held last Friday at the RACV Club in Melbourne. We understand that Mr Breheny graciously stepped in for the departing Women’s Officers.
Update 2: we have been asked by University of Melbourne to clarify that the event was not organised or run by the Melbourne law faculty or by the LSS (instead by the Victorian Council of Law Students’ Societies); the event was a “huge success”; the Women’s Officers “played no role” in organising the event other than selling tickets, and did not quit “in protest” of the President’s actions but for other reasons.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
White Christian males are the most persecuted demographic at law schools and in the profession around the country. If you’re not a bisexual, disabled, indigenous Gaia-worshipper who spends their times spreading “awareness” about “social justice and “climate change”, you are basically vilified and shunned.
Simon could have been re-elected in a landslide if he summoned the courage to confront these feminazi detractors head on. Objectively, Simon has worked hard as president, been highly professional and his effectiveness is beyond question. By contrast the so-called Women’s Officers have done little that has been visible – it rankles among much of the student body that they are getting so much attention for prioritising their own egos above the interest of teamwork and collegiality.
All these women’s-only events like 85 Broads are sheer hypocrisy: they attack imaginary “old boys clubs” for promoting men over talented women yet they themselves now seek to promote women over men, hypocritically subverting the meritocratic process. It shows they want matriarchal domination not genuine equality of treatment.
FirmSpy has documented the excessive working hours and overly stressful conditions in major law firms consistently over the years, and the high rates of mental illness. This is a key explanation for why females are “under-represented” as partners – most females prefer to do other things with their careers and lives than stay in sweat-shops for a decade plus to reach the partnership holy grail.
Wow, some minor retractions are in order…
1. The Women in the Law Breakfast is not a Melbourne University event. It is run by the Victorian Council of Law Students, a joint venture of all the Victorian Law School Societies. This year majority of the event was organised by Monash University under its role of Equality Officer.
2. The Breakfast of September 2 was a great success with notable speakers Judge Felicity Hampel and leading human rights advocate Jessie Taylor, and MC-ed by Principal Kim Shaw from sponsoring firm, Maurice Blackburn. The event was at no point in a “state of disarray.”
3. Simon Breheny actively and enthusiastically organised the event alongside the other Victorian Law Society Presidents.
4. The sole duty of the Melbourne University Women’s Officers was to sell tickets to the event on the Melbourne University campus and nothing else, allegedly they proved too incompetent to do that, so Simon had to do that in addition to his Presidential duties. At no point were the Equity Officers ever involved in the organisation of the event or the list of possible MCs.
5. One would assume the ousted Women’s Officers came to Firmspy to vent their anger at having their incompetence pointed out.
6. There is still a disproportionate number of women in key positions within the legal profession. It is imperative that important events such as The Women in the Law Breakfast continue on into the future.
“We understand that Mr Breheny graciously stepped in for the departing Women’s Officers”
What a gracious act that is only preceded by the persecution of a minority group, simply to show an uncultured point of view.
What do they say about the lower the stakes the dirtier the fighting?
Firmspy finds an unsubstantiated reason to complain about a LSS. Stop the presses.
I sense that Simon Breheny will not have a happy year in 2013…
This is a very interesting issue and Simon raises some valid questions in regard to the on-going gender equality debate. As a male student, I have indeed noticed the number of ladies at our law school is disproportionally higher than the number of men. I understand that the current legal profession is still predominately a ‘old boys club’- however the feminist agenda is pushed to the point where it can be quite uncomfortable for those of us raised with traditional values and a proper upbringing. Despite this, I still think that the position of a Women’s Officer is essential to the proper running of the LSS and indeed any law school. The importance of this position cannot be stressed enough. If you remove the position of Women’s officer, then who will make the coffee and sandwiches?
The more I read this article, the angrier I become. I’m f***’ ragin’ here, bro. I am so angry that I’m shaking and tears are streaming down both cheeks. My arms began shaking which slowly caused my entire body to quake. I then entered into a grand mal seizure from being so enraged.
After I awoke from my coma, the world had changed. Days and days had turned to months and months which turned to years and then decades. My wife and son were long since gone. The outside was calm and quiet. There were no cars. No roads. No disease. People were polite. Most importantly, though, there was no George or anyone of his lineage.
the fact is that to make partner in a serious commercial law firm takes a lot of hours each day. There are no shortcuts. It is long, hard work. You either do it or you don’t. No-one makes you do it. Male or female matters not. Many people have other priorities in life. People make decisions which impact their ability to put those hours in. Many people have circumstances and personal support networks that enable them to put those hours in. Many do not. In the end, these days it has nothing to do with gender. I’m f*****g sick of hearing that it does. Percentages of female partner rates speak only to the circumstances and choices of the individuals. The militant pro-females should f*** off and find a worthwhile cause. I am female btw.
‘White Christian males are the most persecuted demographic at law schools and in the profession around the country’- JD are you fucking serious? Look at the composition of senior judicial officers, barristers and solicitors in Australia ( or any common law country for that matter).
‘ I understand that the current legal profession is still predominately a ‘old boys club’- however the feminist agenda is pushed to the point where it can be quite uncomfortable for those of us raised with traditional values and a proper upbringing’-A Concerned Law Student.
Get a grip and say hello to the real world, this self-righteous view that ‘traditional values and a proper upbringing’ entitle you to a place in the legal profession at all is the reason equity and minority leadership positions ( both in an LSS and a firm generally) are still required.
It’s pretty easy to pick the kind of (male) law student who – either anonymously online or amongst like-minded losers (NEVER out in the open) – bitches about persecution and the unfairness of having female-tailored events and organizations. It’s generally guys with average or below average grades, not getting clerkships, with poor career prospects, who are looking for something other than their own mediocrity to blame. These events generally amount to jack shit in terms of career advancement, and even if they did, giving females (or minority groups) support hardly equates to persecuting males. The reason you aren’t going anywhere is because you’re just not good enough, not because of some feminist plot to take over the world. Get over it.
(And I’m male)
How dare you wench. How dare you indeed. Come say it to my face and not online and see what happens.
Can Firmspy please indicate through their mysterious sources how the two Melbourne Womens Officers contributed throughout their term of office towards promoting Womens issues? I think Simon’s point is well taken – how does a Womens Officer position rectify gender inbalance if the main form of gender inbalance is (as you identify) at a partner level?
Also Firmspy, I would be interested to hear your justifications for fearlessly naming Simon in the hope of souring any job he might have lined up, this seems more like a Gossip Girl blast than an article concerned with gender equality. Should Simon be vilified for having an opinion by people who are too cowardly to even name themselves?
@ Another Act of Sniping
We’ll quickly respond to 2 points you raise:
We’ve always taken a pretty consistent line with the personalities we report on. They tend to be corporate partners, people placing themselves in the public eye (eg TV), or people otherwise in a position of power. There’s is no controversy in naming Simon here.
In terms of your claim that our article might “sour” Simon’s job prospects, this simply reflects the prejudice you bring into the debate.
On the core issues raised in the post, we think a compelling premise is put forward by Crikey that female partnership underrepresentation is a function of the preparedness to make non-gender-specific sacrifice, nothing more. There may be some merit in this view, but it seems at least in part males are able to make the “partnership sacrifices” because of the socially ingrained support networks around them. Women in the law probably don’t yet have that support – and this explains at least part of what we consider to be the ongoing relevance of the kinds of women’s initiatives profiled in this post.
What good timing!!
There are certain people in Melbourne Law School who catch the lift from the ground to the mezzanine floor, when the stairs would be a much quicker option for both the person concerned, and also for those riding the lift.
I have often stared these people down, but to no avail.
So I have started surreptitiously taking pictures of these people, and following them around until I can match names to faces. I now have enough information/conjecture/vitriol to enable Firmspy to publish a damning expose on them all!
But up until now I have hesitated sending this information into Firmspy. I was worried that this website might be turning into a news source of repute when I read FS’s nice write-up on tort law last week.
Luckily for me, there is nothing like reporting on a little tiff amongst self-entitled law students to show that the Firmspy of old is BACK!
I have already drafted a possible headline for my piece: “Mezzinazis”.
Do you have a wikileaks-esque ‘drop box’?
—
The Spy: Really enjoyed this. We’ll keep mixing it up. Thanks for the feedback – when we receive comments like that we feel a sense of pride that we appeal to such an intelligent readership. Truly, we do. We can’t be that crap if people like you are reading us.
Thank you for responding to my comment. Perhaps it would be prudent to also respond to the post by ‘Women in the Law Breakfast Attendee’ above as he/she points out some significant flaws (particularly in points 1 – 4) in your reporting of this story. I for one would be a lot more comfortable with this story if is erroneous facts and sensationalism didn’t detract from what is an extremely important issues.
I disagree with you comment that there ‘is no controversy in naming Simon here’. How can you compare doing an expose on a firm partner (typically 30+ years of age) against publishing highly inflammatory material about someone in their early 20s and who has not even started work in the industry?
In response to your comment ‘In terms of your claim that our article might “sour” Simon’s job prospects, this simply reflects the prejudice you bring into the debate’ I would ask you to elaborate upon this statement. My own thoughts are that your inclusion in the article of information suggesting Simon has secured a Grad position at AAR can only be calculated to someone how derail this arrangement. Would be happy to hear FirmSpy’s reasons for including this information as to my eyes this seems like an attempt to evoke a response from AAR that they will not hiring Simon because of the accusations you have leveled at him.
I think your discussion on the need to promote ‘socially ingrained support networks’ around female students is intriguing, but also vague. Could you please provide some examples of how you think Womens Officers on an LSS can help create these networks?
Please keep in mind also that the Melbourne Womens Officers mentioned in this article apparently seem to have no role in actually organising the Women in the Law Breakfast. So if such events can be run effectively without the help of dedicated Womens Officers, why then is it entirely more desirable to retain the position of a Womens Officer in lieu of a Welfare and Equality Officer?
This is an interesting read, FirmSpy. I’m a current student at Melbourne and I approached Jess Moloney and Lauren Clarke about assisting me with an issue I had that i thought their portfolio was designed for, since one of my lecturer’s in my opinion was being inconsiderate of me as a woman. But neither of them ever got back to me. I thought perhaps they’re just busy with an important role and mine was a small matter in the whole scheme of things, but then I find that they have enough time to play politics and run around boasting about how they had found a part of the LSS constitution they were going to use to extact revenge on Simon and expel him from the LSS and the presidency a month early instead of when the changeover to the new executive happens in October. That turned out to be a flop though, so perhaps their laziness includes both their portfolio and their political schemes.
So overall i’m not surprised that they quit before the important breakfast happened. Hopefully the new women’s officers are more committed to their portfolio next year. Frankly if the girls who held it this year are a reflection of how useful the position is, abolishing it wouldn’t be a loss.
This whole saga is simply the result of three exceptionally arrogant egos clashing (unheard of in any LSS I know).
Observe:
[Name Withheld] 9 August 2011 15:49
To: Lss Committee
Hello all,
It occurred today that I should send a quick email about something that I saw as a bit of a concern last year, that I hope to pre-empt this year. The seasonal clerkship process is obviously very important to all students applying, but unfortunately a lot of students don’t get any offers. Naturally, the type of people that get most of the offers tend to be on the LSS Committee because we are a keen bunch of people with good connections, but that does not mean that everyone on the LSS will get an offer.
Last year I noticed some tension (albeit very slight) between committee members who received multiple offers and and those who received none, and/or visitors coming into the LSS Office who received no offers but perceived some committee members as “bragging” about multiple offers, interviews, etc. The last thing the LSS needs is a perception of being “elite” and “rubbing it in” to less-fortunate students. I am in no way suggesting that conversations re: clerkship offers, interviews, etc are inappropriate in the LSS Office, but I am asking people to be considerate of those committee members and visitors in the LSS Office who do not receive clerkship offers. These individuals may be quite depressed about the rejections, and it is something that the Committee as a whole should be aware of, and to take conscious steps not to aggravate.
That said – good luck to everyone!
Cheers,
[Name Withheld]
—————————-
LSS Women’s Officers 9 August 2011 16:11
To: [Name Withheld]
Cc: Lss Committee
[Name Withheld],
To be honest I am amazed that you sent this email. I don’t think it is appropriate nor necessary. Additionally, your comments suggesting that LSS Committee members are more likely to receive offers is actually contrary to your whole proposition. Maybe you need to take your own advice if this is your position. Your comments suggest that LSS Committee members need an education on appropriate behaviour – and to be honest your assumption that I need to be educated is rude.
Please do not include me in any future emails of this kind.
[Name Withheld].
–
Women’s Officers
Melbourne University Law Students’ Society
I attended the breakfast and found conduct of those whom organised the event (and slavishly sold raffle tickets) were nothing but professional. Did any of these alleged sources actually attend the event?
“White Christian males are the most persecuted demographic at law schools and in the profession around the country. If you’re not a bisexual, disabled, indigenous Gaia-worshipper who spends their times spreading “awareness” about “social justice and “climate change”, you are basically vilified and shunned.”
Interesting comment JD.
What about olive skinned Middle Eastern Jewish & Muslim students with tongue rolling names, or, second generation Vietnamese, Greek, Italian, Lebanese and Turkish law students who still carry their western suburbs swagger and make generous use of words such as “bro” in otherwise WASP dominated institutions?
Dear Firm Spy,
You are an absolute disgrace and are losing all relevance. Shows just how far this website has fallen (if it had any creditability to begin with) that you are now slinging mud at and naming university students.
You are a joke.
Guapo.
Dear Contributors:
Firstly I would like to say that whoever contributed to this article by making insinuations that certain leaders are sexist and have strong right political leanings, I say this:
You will be faced with individuals that have varying political opinions throughout your professional life and have assumingly embarked on a career path that is notably conservative in view. I recommend you learn to be a mature and thoughtful agitator for change rather then a low life debasing disgrace of a student and human whose only claim to participation in political discourse is to facelessly defame and attack another’s character. You do nothing for the cause of women or politics by facelessly attacking someone’s character on a gossip website. You set women back by sending the message that we are unable to thoughtfully address concerns we have with relevant persons, instead suggesting that as women, we are only capable of running off and bitching. You should be ashamed of yourself and the disservice you have done for all women.
Thanks.
Given its treatment of Simon Breheny, it is only fair that Firmspy name the Women’s officers involved as well. Their names are Lauren Clarke and Jessica Moloney. I don’t know where they are interviewing at, but I’m sure this information could be obtained.
If we take Firmspy’s logic, their prospective employers should know about this.
It would seem that the Melbourne University Law Students’ Society is in a greater state of crisis this week than the Obama administration…
Those Women’s officer’s seem more difficult to deal with than a Republican dominated senate.
Or is that just putting it into perspective?
wow ‘Another concerned law student’…. Way to prove my point, and if someone actually had the nerve to repeat what you did to my face, I would repeat my previous statement word to word.
Signed,
an (employed & unconcerned feminist law student.
How are Jessica and Lauren feeling right now?
Would love their thoughts…
For all those that were wondering:
http://www.mulss.com/womens
Of course, this is publicly available information – much like this post.
“Simon could have been re-elected in a landslide if he summoned the courage to confront these feminazi detractors head on. Objectively, Simon has worked hard as president, been highly professional and his effectiveness is beyond question.”
Yeah Simon, sure.
Not sure which I disliked more at Uni – the young lib self promoters, or the women who campaigned for a “womyn’s room” so that they could feel “safe”. Sure, if you need a room to breastfeed or even just want a room where you can fart without blokes around to hear it, that’s fine. Just don’t tell me that it’s because you are afraid of men – it’s sexist and insulting.
Does the fact that I like my women on top make me a feminist??
I’m enjoying reading all of the comments for this article. Just goes to show that despite all the haters out there, this gossip website is popular! Thanks for bringing down all these uppity dickheads…
Great work as always FS!
Dear Morons-who-don’t-see-the-need-for-legal-professional-development-events-aimed-at-women.
Whatever your opinion on FS’ editorial policy or the value added by the LSS members involved here, you are on pretty shaky ground if you think that that the logical response to “there are more women than men in law school” is “well then gender isn’t an issue in the profession any more.” The fact is the system, in general,currently makes it harder for a good female lawyer to progress to the top compared to an equally good male lawyer. Firms have recognised this for years – it stops them keeping the best talent and it directly affects profits.
As a result the best firms have been trying to reform, and some have done it better than others. But the bottom line is that an issue exists, it is in everyone’s interests to fix it (unless you are an incompetent male, or wish to endear yourself to one), and those who whine about feminazis and male persecution could have done with a few more Women’s Officers at whatever law school was lax enough to let them graduate.
Cordially,
a feminist male lawyer.
It is perfectly reasonable to question whether LSS Women Officers are relevant if the majority of current law students are women. Most LSS ‘proclaim’ to represent law students after all.
This article is absolutely ridiculous. As has been pointed out, the monash LSS president was the primary organizer of the breakfast which was a resounding success and sold out. It is absolutely inappropriate for firm spy to write this way about an individual who has not yet started in the legal industry -to name where he is working! Would you like me to write an article about all of Simons achievements this year for the Melbourne uni law cohort? Achievements that have arisen out of many hours of unpaid and certainly thankless work? No that wouldn’t be a good news story, would it?
It is safe to say though, whether the officers’ are male OR female, you would struggle to find an organisation with a greater egotistical stench than a LSS. No wonder they are unpopular with the average law student population.
@Colonel Sanders
I agree. The only thing that turns me off more than seeing “LSS” on a job application is finding a stray pube in my sandwich.
It is disgusting and unfair that some disgruntled student would write such malicious gossip to Firm Spy publicly naming Simon as well as linking him to his prospective employer. Does Simon really deserve all this just for being an avid Liberal?
Since Simon, Jessica and Lauren have now all been named, how about the “anonymous tipster” who started this whole debacle owns up for their own actions?!
The whole issue is stupid and embarrassing not only to those involved, but to the Law School generally. It should be put to rest, and those involved should now move on with their lives in whatever they decide to do.
Who gives a shit about any of these nobodies?
This is a stupid article.
This is exactly why nobody likes lawyers. You have the nerve to talk about “equality” when lawyers of either gender earn up to 20 times more than the common man.
@anonymous (9.33am)
I think most lawyers who talk about “equality” are talking about equal opportunity, and not that everyone should be paid the same wage.
Who is this “common man” you’re talking about?
I came from a poor family and worked hard to put myself through uni working part time during the week, and most weekends. On uni holidays I worked very hard labouring and saved my beans to last during the periods I couldn’t work.
After graduating I worked hard for over 10 years, and am now on a reasonable wicket. I don’t feel at all bad that I earn more than others, including people who have had a lot more given to them than I have, but have wasted their opportunities.
So you’re wrong about the reason no one likes lawyers. It’s actually because we are a pack of self-righteous preachy bastards!
Most lawyers don’t earn that much more than everyone else.
I’m tired of hearing all these boring socialist arguments from angry feminazis who think that the Female Eunuch is the greatest literary work since All Men Are Bastards.
The days where the best lawyer is not hired for the job because of their gender are long gone. Joan Rosenove has blazed all the trails already. All you need to do now is turn up. Preferably in a tight pencil skirt, then you might end up getting the job instead of another better qualified.
The idea that women need their own event in 2011 is laughable along with the insidious entry of the ‘feminist perspective’ to some legal text books.
No, the reason you failed to win your case was not because you ‘failed to assert a masculine perspective’, it’s just because you’re a clown and clownage, is something universally unisex and likely to affect anyone who happens to be a moron. In fact, if anyone does anything stupid, it’s usually a man, when chasing a woman.
God help any client that needs litigation in 25 years, when these angry, incompetent prats make partner.
If this doesn’t make sense to you, don’t worry, we can talk about it in the locker room at Fernwood.
Well I for one am shocked to the core. I simply can not fathaom a world where a university student, a university student @ Melbourne, studying law could be perceived as arrogant. My mind is blown.
But there is more. Apparently there are areas of disagreement between genders concerning gender issues. This can only be a sign the Rapture is upon us. Friends make peace with your chosen God(s), Pink Unicorns, Tea-cups etc. we’re doomed, doooooomed I say.
As the old saying goes “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!”