Famous silks enraged by sudden demotion to low-rank "leading juniors" in The Australian/Chambers legal ratings ... Newspaper's lavish boast ... Egg on face difficult to remove
Last Friday The Australian's legal affairs section was greeted with moans and howls from lawyers around the nation.
Murdoch's agenda ridden organ has climbed into bed with a London-based outfit called Chambers and Partners, which has been "ranking and rating the world's leading lawyers for more than 20 years".
Most of the observations published last Friday were trite beyond compare. Worse still, the ranking of leading barristers was a disaster.
Twenty of the 26 barristers listed as "leading juniors" are, in fact, silks of serious standing.
From Melbourne, for instance, Joseph Santamaria, who has been a QC for 17 years and sits on the Supreme Court's board of examiners, was listed as a "band 4" junior.
Norman O'Bryan SC, one of the Melbourne bar's high flyers, was listed as a "band 3" junior, lower down the pecking order than his younger brother Michael, who is not a silk.
One of Sydney's leading equity silks, Anthony Slater, was listed as a fourth grade junior barrister.
The solicitor general of Queensland, Walter Sofronoff QC, is ranked by The Australian in the third band of leading juniors.
NSW Supreme Court judge John Sackar, who has been a QC for 23 years, also managed to squeak in as a third class junior.
It goes on an on. All of these leading Sydney silks were listed by the newspaper as fourth class juniors ...
- David Shavin
- Mark Richmond
- Anthony Payne
- Richard McHugh
- Ian Jackman
- Katrina Howard
- John Griffiths
- Fabian Gleeson
- Robert Dick
- Richard Cobden
- Andrew Bell
Same with these silks from Melbourne who were put in the fourth grade.
- Christopher Caleo
- Bruce Caine and
- Joseph Santamaria
- Ross Macaw, who has been a QC for 23 years, was put in band 3.
The whole exercise looks like a rush job, trying to upstage the Financial Review which brings out its rankings this Friday (March 4).
Catherine McGregor from Chambers and Partners (left)We asked The Australian's legal affairs editor, Chris Merritt, whether there is a rational explanation for the stuff-up. His reply should safisfy all the anxiety-worts who thought an apology was in order:
"There is. Part of the silks list ran out of order and will be corrected on Friday."
The managing editor of Chambers and Partners, Catherine McGregor, told Justinian:
"The mistake was a production error by The Australian. Their editor has assured me a corrected version will run this week.
The rankings in the Chambers Asia Pacific guide and on our website do not have this mistake."
Normally it would be prudent to forgive the publication of lists running "out of order", because we're all quite capable of making blunders.
However, with its penchant for small-minded sneering and sniping at its imagined enemies The Australian makes itself a legitimate target.
Merritt: extremely rare analysisIt's a paper that leads with its chin, yet has a glass jaw.
On Friday (Feb. 25) Merritt was basting himself and the paper in a thick coating of lard:
"Today's ratings of the nation's lawyers are exactly the sort of independent analysis that is extremely rare in the legal market."
You can say that again.
"The enormous influence wielded by the Chambers guides is due to the fact that they are beyond the reach of the profession.
Unlike some other guides to the legal marketplace, nobody can buy their way into Chambers, nor can the results be skewed by relying entirely on the views of lawyers who may, or may not, be objective.
Because all of this is widely known, Chambers carries real clout."
Chambers explains its rankings in this way:
"Law firms and individual lawyers are ranked in bands from 1-6, with 1 being the best.
In addition, there are further categories in which lawyers can be ranked as exceptional individuals. A 'Senior Statesman' is a lawyer who no longer works hands-on with the same intensity but who, by virtue of close links with major clients, remains pivotal to the firm’s success. A 'Star' ranking is given to lawyers with exceptional recommendations in their field."
Hence, you get commentary of this standard:
• Bret Walker is, "a favourite with both clients and lawyers [and] is extremely clever and outstanding in almost everything".
• David Jackson, "has a formidable reputation for appeal work before the High Court".
• Tom Bathurst is, "perhaps the most well-known and in-demand barrister in Sydney".
• Allan Myers is, "a premier choice for many of the top instructing lawyers".
No analysis of the cases, the work done or why people or firms should be allocated to a certain "band".
What is so puzzling is how the editor of the legal affairs section of the paper could have allowed this muddling of juniors and silks into print.
Is there no limit to the indignities?