Astonishing as it sounds, my conclusion based on multiple media friends is that there appears to be an edict to journalists at both News Ltd and Fairfax not to ask Allens (or anyone) questions about the Robinson/Allens/Aconex matter and to try to ignore it.
We can’t confirm this, of course, but we’ve also tried to obtain details of any injunctions recently sought against journos and found nothing. Perhaps a secret injunction is in place?
Well, it’s Friday morning and the legal papers are out. Where’s the coverage of the departure — and apparent resurrection — of one of the giants of the Australian commercial law scene? Given Robinson’s tenure, seniority and notoriety, not to mention his reputation in Melbourne and his role at elite boys school Scotch College, we found it a little staggering that nobody had reported on his retirement — let alone AllensGate — but us and Crikey.
Then came the news that Robinson’s profile had been reactivated on the Allens website, as swiftly and silently as it was removed. And it seems he is still very much in the building, and just as cavalier as ever, if this Allens spy is to be believed:
I have seen Michael Robinson in the office a couple of times this week, the first time walking around and prominently displaying a a binder of ’Aconex’ Board documents, almost as if he was showing it off.
His bio is still up on the AAR intranet.
No internal announcement why his ”lawyer profile” was taken down from the AAR website.
His office has not been cleared out and he is using it as before.
Strange, huh?
Strange, indeed. Business as usual it would seem. Of course, it seems too much of a coincidence that, mere days after we leaked documents detailing Robinson’s involvement in the alleged conflict, his profile disappears. In the face of this defeaning silence, however, we can only speculate.
So here are our top ten reasons for Robinson’s miraculous ressARRection:
10. Blame the IT department – we helpfully pointed out a ‘glitch’ which they noticed after reading FS and Crikey – and fixed it … a week later.
9. Through his divine consultancy power, Robinson temporarily decided to deprive us of sight. But then the AAR partnership realised that consultants shouldn’t use the firm’s IT equipment for such righteous vengeance… and knelt before Him.
8. Robinson grew tired of endless golf and Scotch sessions.
7. The Fukushima Fifty refused any further attempts to avert nuclear meltdown until .he could watch over them … from cyberspace.
6. It was all a game to mess with online media.
5. Robinson came out on top in a behind-the-scenes power struggle.
4. Allens realised that hiding him inside and just on the intranet wouldn’t work – for long.
3. It was a really bad, heartless, feckless decision – which they realised after reading FS comments – and they have, to their credit, reversed it.
2. Divided they fall: they realised that if Robinson goes down over the Aconex conflict, they all go down.
1. Another even stranger reason, but only a handful of people know and they are not telling.
Do you have a stranger reason?
Now we’ve just heard from an anonymous source at the Vic Bar that no fewer than 12 leading barristers have been briefed by Allens for an opinion on the issue (or, ironically, to place the barristers in a “conflict” position with any potential adversary). With any luck one of them will come back with the Right Answer, yes? Or is it just old-fashioned stonewalling?
Well, being unable to secure any decent counsel, and with our curiosity unsated, we decided to do some research of our own. We dusted off G E Dal Pont’s 3rd edition to Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility and decided to do a bit of research into the merits of AAR’s legal position. GDP’s famous book had little insight on the issue, save for an unedifying paragraph at [7.90]. We emailed him for his view, but he just referred us to the latest edition and had nothing to add. Enterprising, Gino, but unhelpful!
Unfortunately, nothing was forthcoming from GDP’s subsequent text, nor the NSW Solicitors’ Manual. We even emailed Professor Ian Ramsay, who, you’ll recall, told Crikey:
I can’t see a conflict. He could have used a company email address or a personal email address but that just doesn’t look like any kind of conflict… [the consultant/director] is not personally benefiting in some
way. I dont see this as a significant issue based on the information provided.
We asked Prof Ramsay just what was the “information provided” by Crikey before he made his comments, but sadly got no reply. Perhaps he was too busy lunching with the current AAR Chairman, and fellow member of the Takeovers Panel, Ewen Crouch?
But then we stumbled onto a 1996 article entitled The Solicitor Company Director – Balancing The Duties of Care, which concluded:
No court or disciplinary proceedings have to date run to a judgment on this question, at least so far as the authors are aware. The reasons why not are obvious. Any solicitor finding him or herself caught between the competing obligations owed as a solicitor and a director would be well advised to negotiate a speedy settlement. The question though has to be raised if the Law Society should consider the imposition of a conduct and practice rule preventing, or at least strictly limiting, the ability of practicing solicitors to hold board positions. The two roles bring with them inherently conflicting positive obligations.
And, of course, as cases like Chan v Zacharia, Boardman v Phipps and others make blatantly clear, even if there is no risk of an unauthorised profit being made, a breach of fiduciary duty can arise merely from a real possibility of conflict between duty and interest. Not to mention the interesting pt 2.E issues under the Corporations Act: Robinson, as a director, is clearly a related party under s 228 of the Act; so the giving of a ‘financial benefit’ to his former partnership (in which, for all we know, he might still have an interest) may well give rise to a prima facie disclosable transaction (especially since ‘financial benefit’ is to be construed broadly: s 229). Whether he could avail himself of the defence in s 210 remains to be seen.
So, where does this leave us? Based on our research (and making the same host of potentially incorrect assumptions expressed in this post), we think there’s a pretty arguable case that Robinson had a prima facie conflict of interest between his duties to Aconex and his duties to AAR, which, putting the case at its lowest, was probably not consented to at all points during the relevant period. This would leave Robinson in breach of his statutory duties under ss 180-184 of the Act and raise related party issues under Part 2.E. Separately, this would suggest actions against Allens under s 79 of the Act and possibly for negligence (though we lack particulars on this issue). At this point, however, we approach the limits of what we know. Allens spies, got any more juicy info you’d like to share with the world? How about something that is “newsworthy” for the Friday rags?
In other AllensGate news, we’ve been informed by an anonymous Minters spy that AAR has retained Melbourne sole practitioner Howard Orbst (ex-Minters, we think) to represent it in the disciplinary proceedings and any shareholder action. Meanwhile, Aconex has apparently jumped ship to Arnold Bloch Liebler – not that one can blame them, really.
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
Close FS – Howard Obst (no ‘r’). TressCox partner ’til about 2000, then Minters partner ’til about 2006 when he hung out his shingle. He’s a panel lawyer for the Victorian professional indemnity insurer.
You should have a way of awarding six stars for AllensGate stories. So funny I almost cry yet deadly serious and reporting a huge story – they do not get any bigger for Australian law firms – nobody else has dared to touch.
According to his (restored) bio Robinson was made a partner in 1968. In those days, lawyers got on the boards of clients to protect their firm’s interests and get more work for their firm. This was common in the 1960s and 1970s. It is now regarded as unprofessional conduct and breach of director’s duties. This may be the problem here, Robinson may be have been applying his old way of thinking to his role at this client in the 21st century when such behaviour is unacceptable.
It’s a shocking situation Allens have got themselves into. Yet to hear their way out of it all. Maybe they think it will just blow over?
Your AllensGate posts keep getting better and better. Well done FS!
They put him back up???! Oh, dear! So they are saying he really is a Consultant representing Allens on the client’s board? And that’s just fine? What a shambles it must be at AAR HQ thinking what to do on this one. Damned if they sack him, damned if they don’t.
If ABL are acting now, there’s no conflict any more for Allens. Did Robinson’s profile just go down until ABL were briefed? Temporary suspension of duties.
But he’s still there on the board as a sentry for Allens to try and stop any actions by the company against Allens for past breaches of duty.
3. It was a really bad, heartless, feckless decision – which they realised after reading FS comments – and they have, to their credit, reversed it.
Ouch.
Jumped ship to ABL? That’s big news in the circumstances if it’s true. ABL would have little hesitation going after Allens
I’m a former journailist (left the trade 7 years ago and did a law degree). I’m sorry to break news to FirmSpy but, at least during my time, there was a very cosy long standing relationship between big media and big law firms who frequently provided juicy tidbits and stories off the record. It’s not just Allens. It may not be right or ethical, but big media journailists know where their bread is buttered and will turn heads away from major wrong doing by a big law firm, unless it becomes impossible not to report it.
Howard Obst does a lot of insurance work for law firms in his ex-Minters practice – could Allens’ insurers have brought him in?!
Someone in another AllensGate post mentioned a “cadre of saviours” who saved the firm in the 1990s in the Adrian Powles affair. When I heard that Michael Robinson’s profile had been deleted by Allens, I thought – here we go – the “saviours” are swinging into action and taking charge. If they can’t even stick to the decision of deleting him, if he still has too much clout for them to get rid of him, despite what appears a clear conflict situation of being on the board of an Allens client, who is going to save Allens this time? Because, it may take time, but this mess is going to get in front of a judge at some point and then Allens will be all over the papers and in even worse shape than now. The partners who decided to “re-hire” him will likely be culpable too.
What is Allens’ explanation for this situation. He’s their consultant sitting on a client board. How can there not be a conflict of interest? Prima facie, he is involved in decisions affecting them and vice versa. Ergo, conflict. It’s dreadful publicity for them and their client, it makes Allens look terrible as if they have behaved in breach of duties over a period of years. So why not come out and say “we documented informed consent from the outset and strict procedures have been followed so that Mr Robinson was never involved in any matter involving Allens’ advising or billing, so conflict has been avoided”. This must be the situation or there would be real panic by now amongst wiser heads at Allens. So why not just say it and be done with it?
The story just gets stranger and stranger.
In this humble reader’s opinion, AllensGate is FirmSpy’s greatest story yet.
I have the feeling there is a lot more still to come.
There are 1-2 people every time who vote thumbsdown to AllensGate posts. Proof that Michael Rose and Ewen Crouch really do read FirmSpy.
Is it possible they just took his profile down for a few days to edit it? I heard someone say that’s AAR are trying to spin things. It It has been changed a bit. But it would seem extremely unlikely as an explanation, way outside the “Top 10″. They could do those edits in a few minutes online and they do them all the time as people’s details change all without taking anything down. Can you hear the IT guy saying, “I know Crikey just rang and are writing a story tomorrow about the deleted profile, but we need more time, another few days, to code those changes to his bio you asked for before we can put it back up.”
Personally I think it’s reason 4. They wanted to disown him but couldn’t bring themselves to sack him, and ended up looking stupid, so put him back up.
I forgot to say: good work Firm Spy – great story and great gossip. That’s magic the story about Allens briefing barristers to conflict them out. Precious irony.
I think the explanation is even simpler – failed assassination.
Whatever they title him, the fact is Robinson has been the head of AAR for longer than anyone can remember. He’s hard to knock off. Someone thought they had the job done, got him deleted, started pushing him out – and then his survival instinct kicked in and he fought off the attackers, just like he has done time and time again in the past to stay on top. The gossip about him strutting around the office with Aconex board papers is pure Robinson. He’s saying I’m tougher than any of you – try taking me on.
Lol, @Anon3, I really doubt that you used to be a journalist given that you apparently can’t spell the word “journalist” (at first I assumed it was typo, but twice in the space of like 4 sentences?!)
@Anon3
The lack of mainstream media coverage of the story or “turning of heads away” is more than just not right and unethical. The media plays a special role in a free society like Australia as a truth seeker and albeit imperfect arbiter of right/wrong. If main newspapers are not covering what would be a big story, it provides a kind of validation of the conduct, it implies hard-headed pros have dug into the facts, asked questions and come to conclusion there is no story, no basis for the allegations. Ricky Nixon would still have his job but for the probing and reporting of the media. In this matter of Allens and Robinson’s conduct I’m inclined to have a bit more faith in Australian journalism, I don’t think journalists are afraid to turn on big law firms, they report adverse stories all the time. The conclusion I would draw after weeks of FirmSpy posts, the first one of which six weeks ago laid out some sensational allegations, is that the story has been thoroughly investigated including by interview of Allens, and there is a simple honest answer that makes it a non-story, e.g. as many posters have suggested properly documented informed consent at the time Robinson joined the client board. The alternative suggestion is: there is a situation of serious misconduct with conflict of interest with possible civil liability and complaints to ASIC and legal regulators, which if made out would threaten the careers of numerous partners in one of Australia’s biggest and best law firms, but nobody other than FirmSpy and Crikey has considered it worth asking questions and reporting. This is so improbable as to be in the realms of conspiracy theory. It could make the career of a journalist at one of the big papers to lead the reporting of this story, if there was a basis to it. Journalists and each of the main newspapers are ambitious and competitive and would be fighting eachother to get source information and interviews from Allens and other parties. So my conclusion is the opposite of FirmSpy’s. There’s no conspiracy of silence, there’s a simple honest explanation for what looks like a conflict of interest and wrongdoing and because journalists have done their homework and know this, there is no story.
@ Another Anon
@ Anon
Lol, journalists are notorious as spellers due to laziness from having sub-editors to check everything for them.
I tend to agree that, boring as it may be, it is almost certain that several senior journalists have looked into the story and received full explanations that mean there is no story. Otherwise you are saying journalists have chosen deliberately not to report and cover up serious issues of public interest. That would a breach of ethics by multiple journalists, all independent of each other, making them complicit with Allens. So unlikely as to be almost certainly not true.
The lack of coverage in MSM makes me appreciate FS more. Stories like this, and other great stories FS covers, make FS a must read.
@Willie
Agreed
@ Another Anon
“twice in the space of like 4 sentences” – and you are criticising spelling? LOL
On the subject of the “conspiracy of silence”, it would be sublime if it were true and FirmSpy’s reporting ends up taking down not just a few Allens partners but a few journalists who have tried to cover it up or who have turned their heads away from reporting on wrongdoing. I await the next installment.
@Moon
who is saying they were just editing it? that’s laughable. do you think Allens would allow a story about his removed profile to go out to 15,000 Crikey subscribers and all Crikey’s syndicated online news services, if they were just editing it?
GRAPES REPLACE BANANAS IN AAR FRUIT DELIVERY, PROFITS PER PARTNER INCREASE
You lot wonder why Allens seem unwilling to address these concerns that appear only to have arisen on corporate gossip websites. Is it that much of a shock, seriously? We know there’s a shortage of ACTUAL scandal in these parts but the result is that to keep the posts flowing, Firmspy needs to report on every little thing that happens everywhere as if it’s the dawn of employment armageddon. Hell, it’s apparantly still amusing to mention the cancelled 2008 christmas party, despite there having been two parties since then (both of which at the very least passed the what-you’d-expect-them-to-spend test).
When 90% of firmspy is TWO GRADS GET FIRED FROM MIDDLETONS, FURTHER EVIDENCE PARTNERS ARE EVIL and other non-story nonsense like that, why is it any surprise that a top tier firm would just ignore a story that may have a bit more meat to it?
Re the issue itself – you’ve worked yourselves into such a frenzy that the most likely explanation is that this IS a massively explosive story but that every traditional media journalist in the country is either part of some cartel of silence or they’re worried the AAR hitsquad is going to go after their families if they report it.
The Ricky Nixon reference is appropriate. The media often take on people who have done wrong thing and, just by exposing and asking hard questions, push them out of a job and help right the wrongs long before any court. The media can even change a PM this way. It would be a peversion of the media’s role to know about wrongs such as are alleged against a prestigious law firm and one of its senior lawyers and sweep it under the carpet. It sends the clear signal there is nothing wrong and no questions to answer. So, I’m afraid I agree that if after all these weeks noone other than FirmSpy and Crikey picked this story up, “AllensGate” has about run it’s course. The deleted and returned profile is a mystery, but what turns on it?
I’ll try and summarize the debate
One one side we have: one of Australia’s most prestigious law firms, its most senior lawyer who has a faultless reputation, Professor Ian Ramsey who says there is “no issue of concern” (and who would have asked to see all relevant information before publicly saying such a thing), and the entire Australian media who have had weeks to investigate and report if there was any issue to investigate and report.
On the other side: FirmSpy, Crikey, a temporarily missing website profile (so what?), and a bunch of conspiracy theorist law students and drop outs posting frenzied comments with zero knowledge of the actual facts.
It’s a sign that delusion has set in when a site like FirmSpy starts postulating media conspiracies of silence because nobody else agrees with them. In all likelihood, Professor Ramsey’s opinion included a review of an informed consent document that demonstrates any conflict of interest has been properly dealt with from the outset, and major media outlets have also been shown this consent document when they inquired about the issues.
Wake up, everyone. Case closed.
FS and posters above are overplaying the role of the media here. We are not talking about a teenage girl in the Ricky Nixon case. There are plenty of people involved in this matter, including state legal services Commissioners and ASIC, if FS is to be believed, who can get the issues before a court. If there has been wrong done, it will be dealt with by the court. What the media has or hasn’t reported won’t make a hoot of difference then.
@xyyz
Do I get the sense that FirmSpy gets under your skin? Bit of ouch in your post.
Keep up the good work, FirmSpy. There is nothing stopping Allens management sending you an email if they think anything is inaccurate or unfair – they know all their staff and competitors read FirmSpy, so they have every incentive to explain their side. So far they have not tried to correct your AllensGate posts with their side of the story which tends to show your spies are good.
As for newspapers not publishing, what if it turned out News Ltd and Fairfax were clients of Allens and had their own conflicts of interest to declare. Does anyone know?
The sounds of silence are not a mystery nor a conspiracy.
Let’s say the material facts as stated by FS are correct. Let’s also assume there is no excuse like fully informed consent. So the main allegations of misconduct can be made out. This is no normal case – it is multiple partners in multiple jurisdictions guilty of professional misconduct over a period of years. It would threaten Allens very viability, make the Powles business look like nothing. All the Allens partners’ livelihoods would be threatened if the allegations were made out.
Now please tell me which media company let alone which journalist would be prepared to take this story on, given where it is leading, if it is all true? Who wants every Allens partner thinking they are responsible for writing the story that could lead to putting the firm out of business? Add to this worry about being sued for a fortune if any itsy bit of the story is wrong (and the problem of checking, if Allens are refusing to comment) and you have your explanation for the sounds of silence. Media businesses and quality journalists are not afraid of much but one thing that would cause them fear is going up against a whole law firm which, make no mistake, is what this story is about if it’s true. FS is different because, although quite a lot of people in legal circles look at it, it admits it’s gossip/news and not meant to be taken seriously as a source of facts and so has
much more latitude to report a story like this.
So he’s baack!! Now the pro-AAR posters are out in force and spinning it that there is no problem and never was any problem. If this informed consent people keep mentioning saves the day, why haven’t we heard anything about it except in FS comments.
The funniest moment in the whole saga so far was when Michael Robinson’s profile was taken down and the marketing manager at Aconnex was pushed out to front Crikey with the comment that “Michael Robinson has the utmost integrity” but no explanation as to why his profile had been yanked. FS’s Top 10 list missed working this into one of the explanations. How about “his profile was taking down due to having him having too much integrity to be displayed on the vile internet”: But this doesn’t explain why they put it back up?
Ricky Nixon has got a run in comments. Didn’t he through his media spokesman also loudly proclaim his “absolute integrity”?
FS gets an “A” for effort, but the story is losing pace without the newspapers picking it up too. This would be a big a story, front page news, if FS has its facts right. I would be the first to celebrate AAR’s arrogance getting its just deserts but it seems inescapable that the newspapers have picked the bones of the facts in this case by now and must have found AAR’s house in order if they haven’t reported on the story. I find the conspiracy and “fear” theories discussed as explainers for media behaviour unconvincing, never heard of this in Australia – the papers will report on anything if it will help sell more papers.
@xyyz
No, just pointing out that it shouldn’t surprise anyone that firms don’t treat FS like a legitimate news source (ie worthy of comment) when FS doesn’t act like one.
FS seems to want have its cake and eat it too. You can have either be a blog and enjoy the increased scope for speculation (see: bullshit) that blogs get or you can be a legit news source and expect people to take you seriously. I don’t see how you can expect both. Well, you can expect whatever you like, whether or not you get it is a different matter.
Hell, in this thread alone we’ve got commenters noting that FS can be liberal with the truth (AnonYmouse) due to it being a blog and commenters demanding an explanation from Allens (Wondering).
IMO FS is an entertaining read – I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think so – but I come here assuming it’s 10% fact and 90% assumption (or huge leaps of faith). Hell, almost every article carries an in-text disclaimer saying “we don’t actually know anything about this, but here’s what MIGHT be happening”.
@xyyz
People read FS for all sorts of reasons – yours are as good as any – and people talk about it because FS is written in an entertaining way and usually has interesting snippets. When a particular firm is written about, almost everybody at that firm including support staff has quick look. Some things FS writes are more believable than others, e.g. if they post a source document compared to if they say ‘we can speculate whether…’. Nobody written about is obliged to set the record straight but, because so many people read FS, many law firm managing partners do so – to tell their story on the record. Most lawyers I bump into are aware of the AllensGate posts to some degree either by reading them or from hearing the issues discussed. Conflict of interest is a very serious allegation and FS has supplied some but not all of the pieces in the puzzle to back up the allegation, including some source documents. Allens have taken the view which they are entitled to that they should not try and explain themselves. This approach is most questionable on issues like the deleted profile which became a topic of debate on FS and even more so in lawyers’ discussions in coffee shops, over drinks, etc. In that instance, Allens doing something notable by deleting the profile and then leaving a communication vacuum allowed damage to occur. I bet most people haven’t even heard yet that he is back online. Maybe none of it matters, but why allow a lot of people in the legal community to run around with the wrong idea about your firm if you can easily prevent it.
What a development and even harder to explain as the removal, FS’s list of possible reasons had me laughing. The oddest thing is that Allens let Crikey report on the missing profile before they did anything.
The allegations FS has laid out are either the biggest story about law firms in Australia in a decade or more, or no story at all (disappointing as it is, this has to be much more likely or it would be in the news by now). Either way the FS coverage is highly entertaining and informative, FS at its best.
@ wake up
Your summary suffers from the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. You are saying because the people on one side of the argument are powerful and important, they must be right. This is cloudy thinking, some of the biggest cases are won by individuals against the government or big companies.
It seems beyond dispute from credible information that
- Michael Robinson is an Allens lawyer on Allens website with the title “Consultant”
- he has been on the board of an Allens client for several years
- based on one document posted by FirmSpy, he also uses Allens email and is stated by the client to represent Allens on their board
Without further explanation, these facts describe a conflict of interest situation for Robinson and Allens, extending over years. At a minimum, Robinson has a divided loyalty and Allens have responsiblity for letting their consultant sit on their client board with that divided loyalty. Consent cannot be implied because Allens and Robinson would be responsible to do something to avoid the conflict of interest. The only thing this left is informed express consent. If Robinson and Allens obtained it and complied with it, the story is going nowhere because there has been no breach of duty. If there was no informed consent, Allens and Robinson are in a lot of trouble.
@ Willie
More than just “strange”. Whatever arm-wrestling was going on behind the scenes at Allens, they were not prepared to put the profile up or explain why it was down to the Crikey journalist. Crikey may be low on the news food chain, but a lot of people get it, and the story Crikey published was awful PR for Allens with the unexplained missing profile and links to FS AllensGate stories.
Dont want to be overdramatic, but other than some inexplicable IT failure, isnt reason #2 as likely as any? If he’s done wrong, several other AAR people involved have too. They cant isolate him and make him take the blame or he will pull them all down too.
Just snuck out of the office to peek at this story after hearing about it this morning from a colleague – don’t want to open FS url on the office comp or on employer supplied phone. F____g funny!!!! Keep at it FS, show the hypocritical bastards up!!! F__k the newspapers too. Who reads newspapers these days anyway? Internet news, Facebook, word of mouth and text messages are the way I and most people I know hear about interesting things nowadays – havent bought a paper in years. FS is filling a gap left open by newspapers’ dull journailsm and old world ways.
AllensGate is the best thing to happen to FirmSpy since it got banned by MSJ and Clutz. Hopefully Allens decide to ban it too. That would get everyone reading about AllensGate.
Other than the “if newspapers aren’t reporting it, it can’t be true” argument (what happened to the old saying that you cannot believe what you read in the papers?) there is not much argument being put forward to justify the situation of conflict of inetrest FS has laid out. Why doesn’t FS write to Allens management and see if it can get a comment to explain?
If ABL are now acting for Aconex, then there may just be another conflict to add to the mix.
I used to work for ABL and they did a lot of work for Aconex Chairman Martin Hosking’s other business ventures (like RedBubble).
So is ABL acting for Aconex (in the interests of its shareholders), its Chairman or its Board of Directors?
@Moon @Willie
I agree the Crikey article in which the journalist had asked Allens about the deleted profile before running the story about it rules out an innocent explanation for events.
The non-coverage of the story by newspapers raises the stakes for FirmSpy. Either it all fizzles out and FirmSpy ends up with egg on face and loss of credibility or, if it becomes a big story, FirmSpy will have proved it has the best spies for information sources and will have blitzed old media with its early reporting of the story. Time will tell.
i’m pleased. the way they treated him was shabby whatever he’s supposed to have done
Very funny story. Some very funny comments.
AllensGate is bringing out the best in FS eds and commenters
Ha ha, Allens took his profile down to try and disassociate themsleves from him and then FS and Crikey embarassed them into putting it back up. 1-0 to online news and gossip reporting.
If AllensGate is all true and there is no defence then Allens as a firm is probably royally rooted, so why wouldn’t they want to push off the reckoning for as long as possible and keep pulling in those $1m + p.a.partner paychecks for as long as possible. Just saying.
If MSJ’s Robert Milliner will comment to FS on a story about MSJ (Goal Defended post) where is Michael Rose’s comment for FS on the posts about AAR? AAR has come out of it looking rather poorly. Surely an official explanation is called for to try to spin things AAR’s way?