Resources: Blog

Lawyer dismissed for publicly criticising clients


Destructive criticism

When considering claims of adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) a key focus of inquiry is the actual reasons of the decision-maker for engaging in the action.

When considering claims of adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act) a key focus of inquiry is the actual reasons of the decision-maker for engaging in the action.

The Federal Court of Australia recently considered this point in determining whether a major law firm engaged in adverse action in contravention of the FW Act when it dismissed a lawyer who had publicly criticised the law firm’s clients, being two Commonwealth Government agencies.

In R v The Partnership trading as HWL Ebsworth Lawyers [2019] FCA 1409, a senior lawyer employed on a casual basis was dismissed by the firm’s managing partner after he publicly criticised the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

The lawyer made a number of public remarks expressing his view that the Government agencies had failed to adequately respond to recommendations made following a 2011 inquiry into historical sexual assault in the military, an inquiry which he had led.

The lawyer was told by the firm’s managing partner and the partner in charge of the Canberra office, that such conduct was unacceptable as the agencies were clients of the firm.

The lawyer’s conduct also prompted the firm to issue a written policy in 2014 requiring its partners and staff to obtain the prior approval of the managing partner or the national marketing manager before proceeding with any media interview. The policy also prohibited, under all circumstances, negative or critical comments being made about existing, past or potential clients, government departments or entities, regulatory bodies or any existing or proposed legislation or regulations.

Despite this policy and the warnings, the lawyer continued to make public comments about the agencies without authorisation, including in an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald in December 2016.

In February 2017, the managing partner dismissed the lawyer without providing reasons.

The lawyer claimed, amongst other things, that the firm had taken adverse action against him for making inquiries about his retainer (which he had made the day before his dismissal), and for his political opinion.

Given the timing of the dismissal, the Court conceded that the lawyer’s inquiries about his pay were, at the very least, the reason why the managing partner dismissed the lawyer when he did. However, the Court was not convinced that those inquiries were the substantial reason for the dismissal. It noted that the lawyer had been making inquiries about his retainer since July 2016 and the fact that the dismissal was not effected until many months later and this suggested to the Court that it was not the reason for the dismissal.

According to the Court, the question to be asked was “not what [the lawyer] did but rather why [the managing partner] terminated his employment”. On this point, the Court was satisfied that the managing partner, who admitted that he dismissed the lawyer because of his criticisms of the firm’s clients, was not concerned about the lawyer’s political opinion; he was concerned that the lawyer’s conduct in criticising the firm’s clients was a threat to the business, and that the lawyer was being insubordinate.

The Court also rejected the lawyer’s argument that the policy itself was indirectly discriminatory. It found that the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT) stated that conditions or requirements that are reasonable in the circumstances will not give rise to indirect discrimination, and the firm’s policy was a reasonable one having regard to its interests in deriving revenue from those clients.

The lawyer’s claim was dismissed.

Lessons for employers

In a similar tone to the High Court’s recent decision in Comcare v Banjeri [2019] HCA 23, the Federal Court has given further support to the position that a distinction can be drawn between the reasonable requirements of an employer and the freedom of employees to publicly and strongly express their political opinions.

Employers are entitled to set reasonable rules and regulations for employee conduct where there is a legitimate business interest for doing so, such as protecting its reputation, and maintaining its relationships with clients and customers.

This decision is also a reminder that care should be taken to ensure that the reasons for any disciplinary action relating to employee conduct are clearly communicated to the employee and that the action is not for any prohibited reasons.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that reason.


Key Takeaways from our Webinar

Managing Workplace Behaviour: "You Get What You Tolerate"

In our August webinar, our Managing Director and Principal, Athena Koelmeyer, discussed the challenges faced by modern employers when managing workplace behaviour. In that webinar, Athena examined a number of recent unfair dismissal decisions of the Fair Work Commission which provide some good guidance for employers.


Salary reduction brought employee under high income threshold

Below not above

The COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic has significantly impacted the financial stability of many businesses. Employers have had to make difficult decisions and implement different measures to ensure the ongoing viability of their businesses. Some of these measures have included asking employees to agree to temporary reductions in their hours of work or to a reduction in their remuneration.


Fair Work Commission accepts that role with additional travel time was acceptable redeployment employment

The daily commute

Employers have long known that they are obliged to try to find new employment opportunities for employees who are faced with the redundancy of their current role.


FWC upholds objection to constructive dismissal claim

Construction zone

In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.


Court penalises accountant for involvement in employer’s failure to keep employee records

Put your records on

The Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) impose a number of obligations on employers with respect to the making and keeping of employee records and pay slips.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.