Our friends inside Minter Ellison have repeatedly told us in recent weeks that quality lawyers are departing the firm in unprecedented numbers. Preliminary results on the FIrm Spy Remuneration Survey (please continue the great work with the survey by clicking here) suggest to us that the financial incentive to stay certainly isn’t overwhelming.

rocking your next corporate event

So it should not have come as a surprise that the firm decided to do something to try to lift morale, and this appears to have taken shape with a sticky firm bash! A few weeks ago we received the following comments from an anonymous Minters spy:

The big wigs at Minters last week decided we should hold an end of financial year party… at the Park Hyatt.

Geee - can’t wait for the party pies and sausage rolls!

The lavish party was apparently held last week, with another anonymous Minter Ellison spy sending us the following summary of events:

I thought it was inappropriate for [Minter Ellison Chief Executive Partner] John Weber to use his speech at our Christmas-in-July firm function to talk about “fiscal uncertainty”. It appeared to me that John was using the speech as an underhanded means to justify the disgraceful pay-rises that staff have received. In my mind, his speech converted a mediocre firm function into an event that gave staff more reason to be anxious about the direction of the firm. Not much of a celebration John!

But while John’s speech might have been a bit of a low point, the choice of DJ/MC for the event appears to have been a major hit with those in attendance. We received the following comments from another anonymous Minter Ellison spy:

How far has former radio personality Stick Mareebo fallen? He has gone from hosting a nationally-broadcast radio program, to MC-ing a Minter Ellison EOFY party! And not very well, I might add.

Indeed, it appears Stick Mareebo is available for corporate functions! But is he the right man to lift staff morale out of the gutter?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

The lateral mobility of junior staff in the post-GFC era has, until now, been primarily a phenomenon facing Big4 accounting firms. We have repeatedly published rumours that Big4 juniors have been emptying their desks in search of greener pastures on the back of poor treatment during the GFC, poor pay and current over-utilisation.

kicking the door down

Take the “max-assured” KPMG audit staff as an example!

Well, if the following comments from a Minter Ellison spy are to be believed, it would appear that law firm juniors are finally getting mobile too:

Dear Firmspy,

It may interest you to know that so far this year a whopping 26 lawyers have resigned from Minter Ellisons Sydney office, and there are definitely more resignations in the offing. Of the 26 who have resigned so far, 7 have been senior associates and a staggering 19 have been young lawyers, mainly in the coveted 2 -4 year post admission experience range.

Why the sudden exodus? Is it:

a) the unending pay freeze young lawyers have been subjected to while the partners prepare to celebrate yet another budget busting year;

b) the appalling treatment numerous young lawyers have been forced to suffer at the hands of their power mad superiors;

c) the frustrating impotence of a farcically inept HR team; or

d) all of the above?

Even though the construction and finance groups have been left particularly short staffed and are scrambling to find replacements for the recent departures, the partnership shows no sign of making any serious changes to the financial/working/living conditions of its young lawyers, but is instead attempting to buoy the spirits of its disenchanted workforce with such scintillating initiatives as national hard hat day (unfortunately I’m not joking). Adding to this the fact that the firm has only 9 new graduates starting in the Sydney office in the next 12 months, the question has to be asked - how many rats have to desert the ship before it is officially declared a disaster?

Why would Minter Ellison staff be looking to leave the firm? Did the firm misbehave during the GFC and in its aftermath?

A quick look back through our Minter Ellison files suggests that the answer is a resounding “yes”. For example, in announcing a firm-wide pay freeze last year, Minter Ellison chief executive partner John Weber said:

… we are not generally proposing salary increases this year… Limiting salary increases was not an easy decision, but it was one that we felt was appropriate, given the prevailing market conditions and to preserve jobs. Partners will also be lowering their earnings next financial year.

According to the AFR Law Firm Profit Survey, Minter Ellison:

… paid a bonus to many partners last year, for the third year in a row. The very top equity partners took home $1,450,000.00, while about 40% got $1,100,000.00, inclusive of bonus, last year.

Minters also reported 4.7% growth in revenue last year. These results came despite the firm’s headcount contracting by 4.5% over the last financial year, which included the departure of a highly regarded senior associate and apparently a:

property lawyer three months after the mother of five children was promoted to senior associate and six months after she was recruited to the firm from a state government position.

A mother of five … apparently made redundant 3 months after being made senior associate! Ironically, on its website, Minter Ellison makes the following bold assertion:

Minter Ellison. Building trust through business understanding.

Yes, plenty of “business understanding” in relation to the mother of five! Meanwhile, the “about us” section of the Minter Ellison website reads:

the values that drive our behaviour: integrity and trust; enduring relationships; balance; and excellence.

• With integrity and trust, we are talking about being honest, constructive, fair and ethical.

• By balance, we mean respecting the diverse contributions of our people to the firm and the needs of each individual outside work.
  

With integrity and trust, is Minter Ellison talking about - as reported by the AFR yesterday (24/6) - working for both the Port Phillip Council in Victoria and the developer in relation to the St Kilda triangle development project?

The Ombudsman was … less that happy … that Minter hosted a councillor-heavy soiree at Donovans restaurant to celebrate a Triangle project milestone.

What about other allegations of Minter Ellison partner deception?

How well is Minter Ellison maintaining its stated values? Is the firm acting with integrity, trust and balance? Or has it engendered distrust among juniors through a lack of balance and integrity?

Is the firm fostering “enduring relationships” with juniors, or is it happily opening the exit door for disillusioned (but now laterally mobile) juniors with the welcome-mat in position for the next crop of graduates?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

Thanks to the anonymous Minter Ellison spy who sent us the following humourous comments yesterday:

FINGERNAIL SIZED HOLE

The maintenance, non-fee earning staff at Minter Ellison (probably much like all Aussie law firms) need to get a clue. In our office, we have one busy-body facilities man who has somehow been empowered to bother the entire Melbourne office with emails whenever he sees fit.

Whenever he receives something which he thinks may be of interest to the firm, he flicks it on.

The trouble is, #### ##### has no idea about what is appropriate for circulation. Earlier this week, for example, he flicked around an advertisement to a sleep clinic promoting the need to ‘get your eight hours each night’. With Minters partners constantly riding us like some kind of animal, how on earth can we hope to get a solid eight hours of kip?

More importantly, does our maintenance man have an interest in this crooked enterprise?

These are valid questions and the Firm Spy seeks your comment. We would also love to hear your thoughts on the prospects of budding Minter Ellison litigator Alicia Prpich, about whom the Firm Spy received the following anonymous comments:

Firm Spy, I notice that you have declined to report on that damsel-in-distress, Minters grad Alisha Prpich, who preferred the prospect of a full-blown VCAT trial to getting out her mother’s sewing kit…

This cryptic tip-off led us to the following article from the Herald Sun a few weeks ago:

SASSY sisters Cassie and Alisha Prpich were yesterday celebrating the defeat of a clothing store that refused a refund for a faulty dress and accused them of wearing and damaging it. Cassie, 23, told VCAT… she’d bought the dress for her father’s wedding. But she said when she tried it on again … her sister [Alisha] saw a hole the size of a fingernail. But they said aggressive staff refused a refund and accused them of wearing and damaging the dress. “They told me that I didn’t buy a faulty dress and that I was wasting my time, and that I could go away and complain to Consumer Affairs if I wanted to,” Cassie told the Herald Sun.

Gasp store manager Eddie Yilmaz told the tribunal customers often bought and wore dresses, then tried to return them. He said in one case a shop assistant had even seen wedding photographs of a customer wearing a dress that she returned after swearing she had not worn it. Mr Yilmaz said it was unlikely the dress had the hole when it was sold. He said most girls took 30 to 45 minutes to pick a dress, and they would notice a fault in that time. “We all know what ladies are like,” he said. Mr Yilmaz said the dress could have been damaged afterward. But VCAT member William Holloway disagreed and ordered Gasp to refund the $300 cost.

Legal studies student Alisha, 22, said stores probably turned away young customers as a business tactic. “How many girls would just have gone away and sewn up the hole after being told to go away by the shop?” she said.

The Firm Spy thinks most people would have gone away and sewn up the hole rather than enter protracted legal proceedings. But if a Minters grad can’t stand up for her rights, who can?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

In April, we published the following question on notice (15/4) asked of Mr Paul Lucas, the Queensland Deputy Premier & Health Minister:

performing in a MASSIVE building near you

“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?”

The anonymous spy who tipped us off to the question on notice also sent us the following comments:

It might be of interest to Firmspy that the law firm is Minter Ellison (Brisbane), and the principal solicitor in question is Simon Alroe.

In response to this 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 think we have definitely now given this feedback an appropriate amount of prominence. But let us also prominently display the comments written by the original anonymous spy in response:

Hi again, I am the man who sent you the story re Qld Parliament QON 769 concerning Simon Alroe’s illegal access to my medical and psych records (depression in 2000). I have just read the ex-employee Minters “spy” (bet it was Sarah Williams as she was also heavily involved!) stating that my records were “directly relevant” to my wife’s medicolegal Claim.

(NB: My wife’s claim to the Qld Supreme Court was one of “failing to diagnose and treat a neurological disorder” RSD/CRPS from a Brisbane vascular ward (a diagnosis they suspected, but failed to investigate).RSD/CRPS has an Australian Disease Code as an organic disorder.)

There was NO PSYCH CLAIM OF ANY KIND.

I can supply documents which will prove to you, and others, how factually incorrect the Minters “spy’s” statement is. The documents can be:

i) Wife’s Statement of Claim

ii) Simon Alroe’s “lies” (6) to the Qld Ombudsman eg that my wife was suing for psych injury

iii) My letter to Qld Ombudsman Office outlining Simon Alroe’s “lies” with supporting documents.

iv) Mike Allsopp’s Qld Health Registered Memo (he was the Fraser Coast Health District Manager at that time) stating Minter Ellison simply phoned an FOI Officer to request my health records (no Court Order, I was unaware of this happening. This breaks all PIPA Protocol).

…Whatever you want for me to prove my claims to your web site, I am more than happy to provide documents etc to you. PS I have just come out of hospital following a heart attack from all the stress of fighting this issue over 5 years + (can prove my hospital stay)…but I will NOT let this issue be buried. I even have a barrister who confirmed in a letter to me that what Simon Alroe claimed, was fraud.

We wont let this issue be buried either. So please, send us each of the documents listed above. We think our readership would like to read the facts in greater detail. We also call for Simon Alroe and/or Sarah Williams, or any other Minters employees involved in this issue, to contact the Firm Spy with any further details.

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:

but is it directly relevant?

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!

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:

say no!

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!

Last week we reported the news that in between his duties as a Minter Ellison lawyer, Eren Myers has apparently carved out a niche’ in after-hours personal training. Not only that, but he also apparently finds time to offer advice to high-profile alleged rapists

We sought some clarity from Minters on whether Mr Myers was acting on behalf of the firm when he gave advice to sacked St Kilda footballer Andrew Lovett about his recent alleged rape, and whether Minters is currently dabbling in criminal law.

This is what we received from an anonymous Minter Ellison spy yesterday:

Dear Firm Spy

Minter Ellison does not practice criminal law, much less do any of its lawyers openly profess to being qualified to offer criminal law advice to alleged rapists. First year lawyer Eren Myers is in a league of his own on that front.

For your information, the rumours I am hearing is that Eren very nearly lost his job over this incident, but managed to wrest back from the Herald Sun a semblance of dignity by saying “they misquoted me” and “the photo was cropped”.

However this did not stop Eren being placed into lockdown (literally, he was told not to leave the office) when the next day a group of Herald Sun paparazzi descended on the Rialto Towers vying for a photo of Eren. They were apparently seen clamouring in the foyer with large cameras.

I understand that had they captured his image on this day, he would not have been singlet-ed, but rather wearing a shirt and tie.

Thanks to the Minters spy for clarifying the matter. We wish to congratulate the Minters partnership on exercising some restraint in allowing Myers to continue on with the firm.

Consensual sex, anyone?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

[ED - No less than five, yes FIVE, anonymous Minter Ellison spies alerted us to this masterpiece, appearing yesterday in Melbourne newspaper Herald Sun. Thanks in particular to the spy who scanned and emailed us the article.]

It is unclear how Minter Ellison lawyer Eren Myers finds time juggle his work at Minters with the heavy burden of his very own personal training business, providing ex-AFL footballer Andrew Lovett with fitness advice, and doling out legal advice to alleged sex offenders. However if his photo in yesterday’s Herald Sun is any indication, one thing appears likely: he apparently subscribes to the “it is ok for men to wax their chest” school of thought.

In yesterday’s Herald Sun (page 81, for those readers still retaining a copy), the picture of Minters lawyer Myers appears beside disgraced ex-St Kilda footballer Andrew Lovett (who was recently alleged to have raped a female and who yesterday was sacked by his former AFL football club St Kilda) with the following abbreviated article:

…[Lovett] looked relaxed as he posed for photos [at Melbourne’s St Kilda festival] with friend Eren Myers… Myers, a lawyer with Minter Ellison, has been giving Lovett advice on the rape case. And he has also been acting as a personal trainer to the footballer since the 27-year-old’s indefinite suspension by St Kilda.

Myers, who has his own personal training business, has been putting Lovett through a rigorous regimen.

At this stage it is unclear whether Minter Ellison has opened a criminal law practice, whether Minters has taken on Lovett as a pro bono client, or whether Myers is acting in a personal capacity dishing out advice on the nuances of consenual sex.

We await further clarification from Myers and Minters.

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

We reported in late December the revelation that Minter Ellison was intending to lift its pay freeze. At the time, we thought that the thaw was dubious, however, because only particular staff would be given good news in the “letter notifying them of the result of their review”.

Sounds a lot like Minters & Chief Executive Partner John Weber only intend to increase the wages of those members of staff it is fearful of losing.

Over the break the Firm Spy received some disastrous gossip for the small few who genuinely hope to get a pay rise after the review. This from an anonymous - and apparently high-ranking - Minters spy:

recently exiled Minter Ellison partner Simon Alroe has had the criminal charges against him dropped. This must be one hell of a slap in the face to his former, conniving partners Ken “Horny” Horsely and Trent “Porno” Forno. But more than that, the news I recently heard from John Weber that Alroe is intending to sue the firm for north of $15,000,000.00 must be sending shivers up the collective spine of all Minters partners - who, as everyone knows, are already paid at the very low end of the corporate law firm partnership wage spectrum.

Worse still, those lawyers hoping that Weber would make good on his recent promise to lift the firm-wide halt on pay rises can probably now expect their pay to remain steady in 2010.

You’ll recall that former Minters partner Simon Alroe was “voted off the island” in July 2009 for allegedly harassing colleague Trent Forno. Presumably the criminal charges mentioned by the anonymous Minters spy relate to charges of harassment arising out of an incident with Trent Forno. We understand that these charges were the primary rationale for de-equitising Alroe from the Minters partnership.

Accordingly, given that the charges were apparently considered as being without merit by QLD police, does this mean Alroe ought to be reinstated to the Minters partnership? Will Forno now be removed from the Minters partnership for registering charges that brought about the downfall of a colleague, yet were considered by authorities as being without substance?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!

We may have missed the scoop on the Freehills ‘two-tiered’ pay-freeze thaw (a major report on Freehills will be posted tomorrow, so check back for more on this), but today the Firm Spy is back where it belongs - breaking the big stories.

Thanks to the audacious work of an anonymous Minters spy we can today reveal an email sent to all staff yesterday by Minters Chief Executive Partner John Weber:

As you know, it has been a challenging 12 months for us, as it has for all law firms and our clients.  Revenue for this financial year is down on the same time last financial year and while we have performed well against budgets, they were set well down in response to difficult market conditions.  Despite some early signs of recovery in some parts of the economy, we are yet to see a return to normal trading conditions.

Our response to the downturn, which has included ongoing expenditure management and strong strategic focus, has helped us weather the downturn relatively well.  Consistent with earlier commitments, the firm will now be conducting mid-financial year staff salary reviews.

A Minters partner hears a pay review appeal

The mid-year staff salary reviews will be performance-based, will have regard to market salary data and will be completed in December (effective 1 January 2010).  Given market conditions, increases will generally be modest or take the form of a small bonus.  As in other years, not all members of staff will have their salaries increased or receive a bonus.  Each member of staff will receive a letter notifying them of the result of their salary review.  At this stage I anticipate that we will conduct our usual salary review process with effect from 1 July 2010.

The market-wide softening in demand for legal services requires us to continue with our expenditure management program.  Our key challenges will be to continue to focus on our clients and to work as one firm, so that we emerge from this downturn a stronger and more robust firm.

I would like to thank you all once again for your contribution throughout the past year.

So… staff will get a letter informing them of the result of the “review”? Is there any procedural fairness? A right of appeal? Or do staff, once again, have to put their faith in the integrity of partners to “do the right thing” by them? We smell a rat John!

Excellent choice of language in relation to the subsequent pay review too: “I anticipate that we will conduct our usual salary review process with effect from 1 July 2010.” Sounds to us like John is foreshadowing that some staff could remain on the same wage for two years or longer. Oh, the anticipation!

Our anonymous Minters spy had the following comments to add:

Well played John.  Performance-based salary reviews are a long overdue step in the right direction.  However, will modest pay rises and small bonuses satisfy those who have been performing and are exceeding their budgets by not so modest amounts?  Good luck to the firm when it sees a return to normal trading conditions. Unless the firm can do better than modest increases and small bonuses in July 2010, the early signs of an exodus will follow closely behind.

An astute observation by the spy that an exodus will follow. Miserly partners will then have to start searching for huge dollars to pay lofty recruitment fees. Our guess is that these whopping recruitment fees haven’t been factored into the alchemistic Minters “budget”.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Minter Ellison has remained true to its word that it would conduct a salary review at year’s end, while Mallesons apparently shelved plans for a formal review and instead gave staff a paltry 3% bonus. Moreover, an anonymous Mallesons spy sent us the following comments:

When the Mallesons pay freeze was introduced it was implemented on the basis that it would be reviewed in December against how the firm was tracking against budget.

Are we to infer that the apparently broken promise to Mallesons staff can be traced to an unrealistically high budget forecast, or is this yet more evidence that a decision has been made to “buy time” to keep the Mallesons pay freeze in place?

Has your firm moved? Let the Firm Spy know first. Send us your news and views!