[Computerbank] Clayton Utz - do we have issues?

[jennifairy]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:21, Romana Challans wrote:


Regardless of whether they connived in the destruction of documents to
prevent a woman with lung cancer winning her lawsuit against a majot tobacco
company, even regardless of whether they investigated her personal life in an
effort to discredit her personally, they represent tobacco companies - not
exactly what anyone, in even the most charitable frame of mind, could call
ethical or moral companies.

I have real issues with being associated in anyway with such a company.
Expedience of their legal advice being provided for free or reduced rates
does not make it acceptable to me. Surely there are other, more ethical legal
firms we could be associating ourselves with! We should not be one of their
small concessions to conscience, so we can be held up as an example of just
how 'community minded' they are:)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read with interest this am in the advertiser:
"Doctors want law practice to resign"
A group of WA drs has called on law firm Clayton Utz to resign from 
representing them because of Clayton Utz's actions in the case of dying 
grandmother Rolah Ann McCabe.
Clayton utz is legal adviser ot the Medical Defence Association (WA).
Dr Keith Woolard, a cardiologist & Australian Council on Smoking & Health 
chairman, said the firm deserved to lose its $20 million contract with MDA in 
WA. (etcetc)


Firstly I think we need to draw the distinction as to whether we (as CAI) are 
seen to be 'supporting' this firm's actions by being a recipient of pro bono 
legal advice. We receive computer hardware from lots of different places, & I 
bet if you looked hard enough you could find some kind of 'dirt' on the 
practices of most of these corporations etc. But these are companies *giving* 
things to us, be it hardware or legal advice or whatever. 
If we dismiss any offer of donation because of that companies other 
practices, we effectively cut off any chances they have for redemption. 
Rather than deny these companies these opportunities, we should be 
encouraging them to do more good in & for the community. 
Also, I think it useful to remember that companies, corporations, 
associations etcetc are made up of individuals who are liable to make 
mistakes & suffer bad judgement. I in no way condone or respect the actions 
of Clayton Utz in this situation, but I'll bet you the bloke that made that 
decision is or will be out on his ear, damage control will be in place & 
maybe the firm will be bending over backwards to be seen to be doing some 
good somewhere. Yes by all means deplore the actions of these individuals, & 
by default the company, but what is gained by stopping good from happening?