Updated
Lawyers for Adani who proposed acting as the mining
giant's "trained attack dog" could face a professional misconduct
investigation by Queensland's legal watchdog.
The Legal Services
Commission has told the ABC it will "consider and assess" marketing
material created by Brisbane firm AJ & Co, which pledged to use the
legal system to wage "war" on Adani's behalf.The commission said it would then decide what action might be taken, after the ABC revealed the draft strategy to pressure government decisionmakers, silence critics and bankrupt unsuccessful court opponents.
A retired Supreme Court judge who is patron of Queensland's Environmental Defenders office described the AJ & Co document as "profoundly disturbing", while a leading law ethics expert said it damaged the reputation of the profession.
A lawyer for AJ & Co said the firm denied "any allegations that the firm has acted outside the terms of the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules".
The draft commercial proposal labelled "Taking the Gloves Off" included sections called "Play the Man" and "More Than Law", which outlined legal tactics to discredit decision-makers and target financially-vulnerable activists in order to help bring the Carmichael mine to life.
The marketing document says the firm and Adani would have a "single aligned goal — get this mine built and operational asap".
The Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules prevent lawyers from acting as "mouthpieces" of their clients, bringing the profession into disrepute, and compromising their professional independence.
Acting Legal Services Commissioner Robert Brittan confirmed the regulator was examining the matter.
"The Legal Services Commission is aware of these issues having been raised in the media and will consider and assess that material," Mr Brittan said in a statement."Once that assessment has been undertaken a decision will then be made as to what action may be taken.
"The Legal Services Commission is not in a position to comment further at this time."
Since it was engaged by Adani, AJ & Co has pushed to bankrupt a cash-strapped Indigenous opponent of the mine, threatened legal action against a community legal service and an environmental group, and applied to access an ABC journalist's expenses and documents.
AJ & Co's former head of commercial litigation, Alex Moriarty, quit over a falling out over strategy in the wake of the proposal.
Monash University law professor Adrian Evans told the ABC that the firm's language in the draft strategy raised a red flag.
"That brings the profession into disrepute, definitely," Dr Evans said.
"The 'no mouthpiece' rule essentially says that a lawyer will be independent of their client, that they will bring their own expertise impartially to the situation and not attempt to be a hired gun, in the sense of losing their independence.
"I'd say in this case, the lawyers concerned could risk losing their reputation for independence.
"If you lose your reputation for independence, you also risk losing your respect for competence, because competent advice means staying independent."
Retired Justice Alan Wilson, the patron of Queensland's Environmental Defenders Office, which received a legal threat from AJ & Co on behalf of Adani, has issued a scathing rebuke of the strategy.
"The strategy outlined in media reports is both extraordinary and gravely concerning," Justice Wilson, a former head of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, said.
"It is profoundly disturbing that lawyers working within our system of justice would believe, or represent, that their job is to be 'trained attack dogs' and that their client should regard itself as 'involved in a war' that might require 'all out attack'."
"It shows a fundamental misconception of the lawyer's role, which is to advance the interests of justice."
AJ & Co's lawyer said the firm "treats its duty to the court and its ethical obligations as solicitors extremely seriously".
He said it "will always strenuously defend its good reputation [and] upholds all professional standards of conduct while acting in the best legal interests of its clients".
"[It] cannot and will not make public comment on client or potential client discussions or matters, which remain confidential and will not engage in conduct responding to anonymous leaks of draft material."
No comments:
Post a Comment