The “independent” bar goes cap-in-hand to the government … Game’s up … One dissenting voice above the parapet … Trying to prop-up the chambers working model … Turnover of bar staff … NSW Law Society in upheaval as a cabal seeks to change the constitution and sideline dissenting voices … Theodora reports 

Yet, not all members are onboard with Game’s plea for government handouts.  

To the Commonwealth attorney, The Christian Porter, Game listed nine items, including prompt payment of fees; an extension of the business stimulus package with a “cash flow boost” for the self-employed and an extension of the COVID-19 supplement; deferral of GST and income tax instalments; more time to lodge BASs; rent relief; banks to waive or defer loan payments; and interest free loans to briefs.  

He sent an eight point plan sent to NSW AG Mark Speakman, with a call for assistance to barristers of over five years standing who can’t pay for their tickets to trade or union fees; financial assistance for legal aid briefs; protection from eviction; review of the requirements that crown employees may not physically attend court to brief barristers; and cleaning District and Local courts every two hours.  

In his begging missives, Game shocked many by describing members as “business operators”. For untold generations barristers thought they were professional service providers and now they’ve been told they are small businesses like hairdressers, personal trainers and pole dancers. 

Game’s submission came with no costings and for an allegedly independent outfit with a median full-time income of $165,048 to be grovelling to the government is surprisingly undignified. 

Feisty 2nd floor Selborne barrister Michele Fraser has written to both Porter and Speakman objecting to Game’s call for help.  

To Porter she wrote: 

“The Bar has a long tradition of service to the community, and independence, in keeping with our motto Servants of All Yet of None. The COVID 19 pandemic is creating challenges for the courts and the bar, but this is not the time to seek support for barristers as ‘business operators’. 

The Commonwealth government should not accede to the Bar Association’s request for financial assistance to barristers. Nor should barristers be permitted to pay tax instalments or be given extensions of time to comply with tax reporting obligations. 

In my view, the government should call on those able to do so to bring forward their payment of tax, not defer it. 

As for interest free loans and deferred repayments, barristers are well able to negotiate reduced interest or re-scheduled loan repayments, and should have little difficulty in doing so in the present economic circumstances.” 

She sent much the same message to Speakman, pointing out Game is seeking to prop-up the chambers model, which has been under stress as barristers migrate elsewhere: 

“Increasing use of online technologies has already changed the way legal services are delivered. About 25% of barristers do not practice full time from chambers. They work from home, are door tenants or share facilities in other ways.  

The COVID 19 pandemic has accelerated the trend away from a chambers focussed practice. Most barristers are currently working at home. This is not the time to turn the clock back with financial support for an antiquated business model. 

It is not the case that all practices will be adversely affected by the COVID 19 pandemic, other than in the short term. There is likely to be an increase in work in the following areas: 

 The bar is well able to look after its members. In 2019, the Bar Association had current assets of $14M, the barristers benevolent fund had $5.6M, and the Mum Shirl Fund for Indigenous Barristers had $540K.

 As for prompt payment, I would be very concerned if government agencies were to prioritise payment of barristers over provision of essential services. 

Although the NSW budget has been in surplus for some years because of the sell off of assets and increased revenue from stamp duty, the state’s resources are finite. Barristers can wait for payment. We’re used to it.” 

And members of the bar are also used to generous discounts and perks on a wide range of services and products, including mortgages, airline travel, car finance, gym memberships, online shopping, magazine and newspaper subscriptions and “lifestyle experiences”. 

These are available through the NSW grill and there is a jaw-dropping list of member “rewards” available through the ABA. 

Quite apart from its members, the bar association of NSW itself has been through an amount of turmoil with a turnover of senior staff.

Three experienced senior lawyers have left the professional conduct department – Helen Barrett, Peter Smith and Angela Huang – who have been replaced by less experienced lawyers. 

Ting Lim recently resigned from the policy section, and there was a suggestion that Roshana Wikramanayake might also resign, although she is still listed as a senior policy lawyer. Elizabeth Pearson has taken up the role of director of policy and public affairs. 

Elizabeth is an ex-construction and dispute resolution associate at Baker McKenzie and a policy advisor and speechwriter for former Stop The Boats Minister, Scott Morrison. 

One source says salaries of some of the bar’s heads of department are at least $250,000, more than the medium income of the rank and file membership.  

The underground administration has swelled to a grand tally of 32 beavering away in the bowels of Phillip Street. 

At the time of going to press our questions to the bar were met with an off-the-record response. Next day we received this official reply:

“The New South Wales Bar Association does not comment on the individual circumstances of any current or former staff member.”  

A cabal of revolutionaries is plotting to change the constitution of the NSW Law Society – to reduce the size of the council from 23 to nine. 

Why so? Apparently, 23 councillors make the meetings too unwieldy, long-winded and annoying. 

There’s nothing worst that having discussions drag on, dominated by people from law shops in the boondocks. 

The proposed change is being spearheaded by a group that includes senior vice president and Large Firm Member Juliana Warner, office manager at Herbert Smith Freehills. 

It wouldn’t be difficult for the big firms to round-up enough proxies for an AGM to change the constitution. It would need 75 percent of those who voted. 

The proposal was discussed at a council meeting held on Sunday March 15. Should the council be reduced in size, the concern is that Large Firm Members will run the show and that there will be fewer voices from the suburbs and the regions. 

Doing away with dissenting voices seems all the rage at the moment. 

Of the current 23 councillors, nine are from large shops, government bodies and corporations. In response to our query a spokesperson from the Law Society issued a carefully worded statement: 

“Periodically, as is required under the articles of association, the council reviews matters including the composition of its council.

Within the current year the council has considered these matters. This is not unusual. At this point, there is no current proposal to amend the composition of the council.”

With Michael Tidball leaving to take up the reins at the Law Council in Canberra, the hunt is on for a new chief executive officer – maybe a manager from one of the big firms will step into the $500,000 a year gig.  

Tidball had been there 14 years and no one wanted to see him leave.