Ashby lawyer says reputation damaged

James Ashby’s lawyer, who was slammed by Justice Steven Rares for including “scandalous and irrelevant” allegations in a sexual harassment case against former parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper, has claimed his professional reputation has been sullied.

Leanne Mezrani • 19 January 2013 • SME Law

In an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court, lodged on Monday (14 January), Michael Harmer of Harmers Workplace Lawyers said he was “aggrieved” and “prejudicially affected” by Rares’ findings that the purpose of bringing a case against Slipper was to pursue a political attack. Harmer claimed that the judgment contained “serious adverse findings impacting upon the professional reputation and standing of [Harmer]”.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

Harmer also claimed that he had been exposed to the potential of professional disciplinary action.

The Office of the Legal Services Commissioner could not reveal whether Harmer is currently being investigated over “abuse of process” allegations in Rares’ judgment. However, Assistant Legal Services Commissioner Lynda Muston told Lawyers Weekly that the office always investigates claims of abuse of process or misleading the court.

“Where the evidence supports those allegations we’ll prosecute accordingly,” she added.

But an investigation could be on hold until the outcome of Harmer’s appeal.

VIEW ALL

“If we were looking at findings of a particular court in a particular matter and that matter then went on appeal we would ... defer that investigation pending the outcome of an appeal,” said Muston.

Ashby has also filed an application for leave to appeal Rares’ decision. Slipper’s ex-employee, who will be represented by Harris Freidman Lawyers, wants the sexual harassment allegations to be tested in court. The application also questions “the professional obligations of solicitors when filing originating applications or pleadings to the court”.

Harris Freidman has declined to comment on whether the firm will argue that Harmers Workplace Lawyers did not meet its professional obligations. Harmers Workplace Lawyers continues to represent Ashby in his sexual harassment case against Slipper.

In his December 2012 judgment, Rares criticised Harmer for including assertions that Slipper had a sexual relationship with a male staff member in 2003, and for allegations of Cabcharge misuse, which were later removed from the statement of claim.

“No lawyer acting responsibly could have included either of those matters ... in the originating application to make what would become a public attack on Mr Slipper when it was filed,” he said in his judgment.

Richard Leder, a defamation expert at Corrs Chambers Westgarth, told Lawyers Weekly in December that the court can impose sanctions for abuse of process; in the Slipper case, Ashby was ordered to pay his ex-boss’ legal costs and Harmers Workplace Lawyers to pay Ashby’s costs on an indemnity basis.

A court hearing for Harmer’s application for leave to appeal is due to be heard on 6 February at the same time as Ashby’s application.

Absurdiness Brown Saturday, 02 February 2013

That makes so much sense. Not.

0
Absurdiness Brown Saturday, 02 February 2013

So true.

0
the Truth Thursday, 24 January 2013

Was the lawyer given the right to answer to those allegations and if not how is it not a denial of natural justice - judges are no better at reading minds than I am. This case is full of the smell of politics and I don't exempt anyone.

0
yossarian Tuesday, 22 January 2013

Kinda makes you feel sorry for the helpless creatures:-Bob and Chris decide to cross Australia in a hot air balloon. However, neither were particularly experienced balloonists, and Bobâ€™s mind quickly drifted from navigation to thoughts of how clouds look like cuddly little bunny rabbits. Upon realizing that they were lost, George declared, "Bob -- we are going to have to lose some altitude so we can figure outwhere we are."Chris lets some hot air out of the balloon, which slowly descended below the clouds, but he still couldn't tell where they were. Far below, they could see a man on the ground. George lowered the balloon, to ask the man their location.When they were low enough, George called down to the man, "Hey, can you tell us where we are?" The man on the ground yelled back, "You're in a balloon, about 100 feet up in the air."George called down to the man, "You must be a lawyer." "Gee, George," Bob replied, "How can you tell?" George answered, "Because the advice he gave us is 100% accurate, and is completely useless".The man called back up to the balloon, "You must be a client." George yelled back, "Why do you say that?" "Well," the man replied, "you don't know where you are, or where you are going. You got into your predicament through a lack of planning, and could have avoided it by asking for help before you acted. You expect me to provide an instant remedy. The fact is you are in the exact same position you were in before we met, but now it is somehow my fault."

0
Centreman Sunday, 20 January 2013

Little surprise that this grandstanding in employment cases has been viewed with disfavour by the courts.

0
Not impressed Friday, 18 January 2013

Of course his professional reputation has been sullied and so it should! He will have to wear this kind of judgement if he has no respect for the process of the law.

0