Deliriums on the Derwent … Fear and loathing at the Taswegian bar n’ grill … Terrifying missives … Unauthorised threats … Dealing with a “hive of Sydney insects” … The Map all shook-up
Tensions boiled over when Gunson (son of Clockface Gunson) spiked Abbott’s efforts to secure with the Professional Standards Councils a limited liability scheme for Taswegian briefs.
Abbott had also threatened to sue the PSC if did not accept his application for a limited liability scheme.
Gunson disapproved of Abbott’s confrontational manner in dealing with the PSC and said that the issue of limited liability should be deferred until after the bar adopted a slightly modified version of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct Rules, as they operate in NSW and Victoria.
Abbott indicated he would get the numbers for a special general meeting of the bar to move a motion of no confidence in Gunson and the rest of the bar council.
The famous Malthousian also told the bar prez that his explanation for not proceeding with the limited liability application to the PSC was “strongly offensive and breathtakingly naïve”.
For good measure he said that the bar president is, compared to Abbott himself, a “relatively inexperienced practitioner”. He described the Professional Standards Councils as a “hive of Sydney insects … an almost unbelievably cumbersome bureaucracy”. The NSW and Victorian bar conduct rules are an “interstate monstrosity … [giving rise to] a monstrous restriction on individual freedom”.
When Abbo found out the bar council was planning to sign-up to the “uniform” model conduct rules he hit the roof. In a letter to the membership, dated June 15, he said:
“I record my view that it is grossly unsatisfactory that, so far as I am aware, bar council has taken no step to inform or consult with you in relation to this issue …
In my view the process should be stopped now. There is no good reason to replace our simple, easy to comprehend and apply, and longstanding bar rules with this interstate monstrosity.”
He has a number of objections, including a prima facie ban on barristers participating in political activities, “including for example Lawyers for Forests, on the one hand, or in the support of the forestry industry, on the other”.
“It would also prohibit for example the federal attorney general and the shadow attorney general from using their queens counsel qualifications in politics.”
He is also concerned that the uniform rules abolish the right of barristers to sue for fees. There are other smouldering objections which can be read in full here.
Bar president Gunson directed there be no more work on this limited liability plan until after the new bar rules are in place. Abbo fumed to fellow members:
“My activity is probably not a brief in the strict sense but, rather, work being done by me, in my capacity as [a] member of the independent bar, without charge to promote the interests of the profession …
I have spent hundreds of hours and expended huge effort over an extended period, culminating [in] the lodgement in November 2015 of all the necessary documents with the relevant authority – if this was a brief it would owe me well over $200K.”
As a way of coping with the “pedantry and vacuity” of the PSC and to secure a scheme on reasonable commercial terms he said that, “the issue may have to be forced to litigation”. Accordingly, Abbott drafted and sent to the PSC an affidavit setting out the history of his work and in a letter threatened to sue the PSC if his application was not considered or it was determined adversely.
He sees the limited liability scheme for Van Diemen briefs as “one facet of a wider asset protection strategy”.
The next day bar prez Gunson wrote to the members saying that the proposed conduct rules circulated by Abbo are not the current version and that there will be a consultation phase once they are finalised.
Nor was the bar council aware that Abbott had lodged an application for approval of a limited liability scheme and it had not approved its contents.
“I did not, and do not, agree with either the terms of the application or the tone of the approach to the Professional Standards Councils that Mr Abbott had adopted.”
A bundle of correspondence between Abbott and Gunson was also released to the rank n’ file and it’s here that things start to sizzle.
“I have one current pro bono brief assisting the bar in procuring limitation of liability …
To achieve this I have had to deal over an extended period with a hive of Sydney insects working under the auspices of the Professional Services Councils. It is an almost unbelievably cumbersome bureaucracy …”
“You have not even had the courtesy of informing me or consulting with me in relation to what has been done, which involves the suspension if not the burning of hundred of hours of my time expended over many years.”
He adds that he’s minded to write to all members of the bar (see letter of June 15) and depending on the response to call a special general meeting at which he proposes to move a motion of no confidence in the president and council.
“Your extensive work pursuing a limitation of liability scheme for the Tasmanian bar is greatly appreciated, and the frustration that you have felt when dealing with the Professional Standards Council is obvious.
That said, I do not agree that it was appropriate to frame the application to the Professional Standards Councils in the confrontational matter that was adopted. Likewise I do not agree that it was appropriate to threaten to commence proceedings against the Professional Standards Councils, particularly in circumstances in which you did not have the authority of the bar council to convey such a threat.
… in light of what has passed, you are no longer authorised to communicate with the PSC (or anyone else relating to the proposed Tasmanian bar limitation of liability scheme on behalf of the bar council or the Tasmanian bar.
I am hopeful that your letter to me of 5th April 2016 was dictated and sent in a moment of ‘hotheadedness’.”
In any event, Gunson proposes to progress the application for a limited liability scheme, but after the proposed new bar rules have been made.
“I refer to your email of 11.57am on 5 April 2016 and I record at the outset that I find the content in the matter to be:
- strongly offensive; and
- breathtakingly naïve.
You have been imperially [sic] discourteous to me in all that you have done on this issue to date.”
Andrew goes on to say that he acted with the express authority of previous bar bigwigs O’Farrell and McTaggart. His “game plan” was to force the PSC to consider and determine the application within a reasonable time, “initiating litigation against it if it continued to be intolerably intransigent …
“The strong likelihood was that, with a properly loaded litigation gun at its head (and not otherwise) it would have come to heel. I take very strong exception to you [sic] statement that I have embarrassed the Tasmanian bar – if you had not interfered we would now be close to the desired result.”
Abbott added:
“You are a relatively inexperienced practitioner and that shines through what you have done. I am not an inexperienced practitioner in any sense. My long experience in dealing with bodies of this nature is that, generally speaking, you achieve nothing without force or the threat of it …
Finally, I note that the content of my affidavit was considered and measured in the circumstances … It also had a deliberate touch of black humour that was entirely appropriate in the circumstances …
In conclusion I reiterate that what you have done has done and will do nothing but play into the hands of the Sydney mandarins, whose grip on us (and others) in my view clearly needs to be permanently broken …
I invite you, with a view to avoiding internecine warfare, to consider your position.”
“I do not propose to engage in a debate with you regarding this matter and accordingly I will not be responding to your correspondence beyond the extent of this e-mail. The bar council will progress the bar’s application for approval of a limitation of liability scheme as the bar council sees fit.
I reiterate that you are not authorised to communicate with the Professional Standards Councils or anyone else in relation to this matter on behalf of the Tasmanian bar.”
Justinian has carried numerous reports on Andrew Abbott and his famous correspondence:
Lawyers, guns and wildlife
Abbott’s plan to shoot wildlife at the Kingston Beach Golf Club while driving around in his Porsche.
Hazard to health
Golfers play through as silk stuck in the rough
The Map of Tasmania
Mix up over bottle of champagne sent to chambers. Was it for Abbott or for Malthouse?
Well done, Wayne
Abbott writes to the president of the Tasmanian Club complaining about the heaviness of the rim on the club’s wine glasses. He adds that it is “defamatory” to charge corkage of $10 a bottle.