meeting people who have been screwed over by lawyers (1 Viewer)

[inasero]

lol who wants to work for paper shredders anyways?

 

[Meldrum]

is this a vote of no-confidence for Clayton's Utes i see? destroying documents? hiring private investigators to dig dirt about the plaintiff?

Clayton Utes, ahaha. It sounds slightly less professional than utz.

 

[Frigid]

Of course, I could be wrong

one of the solicitors who used to work at my current firm suggested that maybe Clayton Utz is the inspiration of Rottmans (the firm in Hell has Harbour Views).

the only factual link that supports this theory is the fact that Claytons did represent Rothmans, a tobacco company which latter merged with British American Tobacco.

A link to the Age article on the case and Claytons subsequent closing of its tobacco litigation dept.

 

[Lexicographer]

Ok, I guess I'm the only one but what is the significance of being THE Rogers from Rogers vs Whittaker?

 

[Sarah]

Just wondering, what is a good Law firm to work for? Are most big law firms like Clayton Utz?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Just wondering, what is a good Law firm to work for? Are most big law firms like Clayton Utz?

Working in-house for a funky company like Virgin, for example, would be enjoyable, imo.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Just wondering, what is a good Law firm to work for? Are most big law firms like Clayton Utz?

Blake Dawson Waldron

And er.. let's forget what they did in Walton v Maher shall we...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Ok, I guess I'm the only one but what is the significance of being THE Rogers from Rogers vs Whittaker?

It was a big case... it might be interesting to you actually - the HC said that a health professional has a duty to warn a patient of a material risk inherent in proposed treatment. A risk is material if in the particular case:

• a reasonable person in the patient's position, if warned of the risk would be likely to attach significance to it, or
• the medical practitioner is, or should reasonably be, aware that the particular patient if warned of the risk would be likely to attach significance to the risk.

Meeting Rogers would be kinda like meeting Ms Carlil; these things have a whole new meaning, it's like celebrities or something out of a storybook.

I have a friend who was with a bunch of people driving through Wyong Shire and were all amazed, "OMG we're in Wyong Shire! Who want's to go water-skiing!"

 

[Sarah]

THE BIG FIRMS

http://www.claytonutz.com/controller.asp

http://www.mallesons.com/

http://www.gtlaw.com.au/gt/site

http://www.bdw.com.au/

http://www.cliffordchance.com/home/default.aspx

http://www.aar.com.au/

http://www.deacons.com.au/

http://www.corrs.com.au/corrs/website/web.nsf/Content/Home

---------

Slighty smaller but still is

http://www.phillipsfox.com/

http://www.minterellison.com/public/connect/internet

Oh ok. Thanks for the list!

But what I meant in my question "are most big firms like Clayton Utz?" was whether most big firms destroy documents and engage in other dodgy procedures?

 

[Lexicographer]

If they do, I doubt they'd admit to it.

 

[Frigid]

I want to meet the shopping centre ppl from Waltons v Maher

 

[santaslayer]

Yes, I've been engaging in dodgy transactions and I've been 'cooking the books', but because I'm an honest lawyer, I'm going to admit to my mistakes and tell the world about it. I'll only be risking my career and a lengthy gaol sentence.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

But what I meant in my question "are most big firms like Clayton Utz?" was whether most big firms destroy documents and engage in other dodgy procedures?

They're law firms, not saints. Money will always be top priority and they will usually go to reasonable lengths to maintain it. This means the occasional dodgy act here and there, sure. However the atmosphere varies and certainly an incident that great was probably an uncommon example, because the risks of misconduct are also there.

It also depends on what you define as dodgy

 

[stamos]

lol THE rogers?
why do you imply he would have anything against lawyers, much less torts lawyers? I mean for crying out loud, he got the govt. to change medical negligence laws so that can't be such a bad thing- AND he won any way you look at it.

um rogers was the doctor and he lost the case

moreover he didn't do anything wrong in the operation at all, but just didn't warn of some tiny tiny risk of sympathetic opthamalia

if you got done in by a 0.1% chance or whatever it is, you'd probably be pissed off at being held 100% liable

 

[inasero]

exactly- unlucky guy but yeah he should have told whittaker