Annette Kimmitt was toast the moment she got thrown out Joe Aston’s Rear Window.
Last Thursday, the white-collar gossip columnist revealed that the managing partner of corporate law firm MinterEllison had sent an all-staff email expressing concern about the company’s work for Attorney-General Christian Porter. Less than a week later, Kimmitt is gone.
This high-profile woman is the first person to lose their job in the fallout from historical rape allegations levelled against Christian Porter.
But this episode is about more than an old-school law firm’s cooked gender politics. It’s about a bungled public relations strategy, long-simmering office politics and the kind of inevitable generational divide that’s been rippling through all workplaces over the last few years finally reaching Australia’s cloistered, conservative legal fraternity.
Hopelessly bungled optics
On Monday, MinterEllison put out a now poorly-aged tweet spruiking its International Women’s Day diversity and inclusion panel.
At the same time, partners were trying to work out the best way to axe Kimmitt without it looking too much like revenge of the patriarchy. Discussions were leaked in real time to the Australian Financial Review. But it was always going to look like that no matter how they did it.
The partnership at Minters is about 30% female — which is bad, but also broadly consistent with the industry as a whole. On Tuesday, the board told Kimmitt she was done. But Minters, which has remained officially buttoned down while leaking like a sieve, managed to mess up the optics of that too.
Officially, the firm wanted to hold off on an announcement for two months to make the axing look less “knee-jerk”. Too bad someone also leaked that to the AFR.
Still, it wasn’t just the coup-plotters that were guilty of crimes against PR. Kimmitt’s initial email, in which she said the firm’s working for Porter had “triggered hurt” for her and other female employees, was always going to be weaponised by her detractors.
It was a sign that Kimmitt, who is not a lawyer and had been brought in from consulting firm EY, didn’t understand the realities of the profession. It was a sign the boss, who’d tried to soften the firm’s reputation as a classic corporate behemoth by appearing in the Mardi Gras parade (the first firm to do so), was pursuing trendy agendas at the expense of Minters’ core work. This is a firm that handles $93 million worth of government contracts.
But perhaps Kimmitt’s biggest misstep — however well-intentioned her concerns about staff wellbeing — was picking the wrong enemy in that fight.
Picking the wrong fight
Peter Bartlett is MinterEllison’s longest serving lawyer. He has served on its board 20 years and been its chairman twice. He works for numerous media outlets (including Crikey), and more importantly, is an expert at repairing shattered reputations. He’s a natural choice for Porter.
Crikey understands Bartlett started working for Porter around the time the attorney-general was subject to allegations of sexist, boorish behaviour in a Four Corners episode last November. That Kimmitt only became aware of this, as she stresses in the email, through Twitter last Tuesday, probably speaks to broader problems at the firm.
Bartlett is just the sort of partner Kimmitt couldn’t afford to publicly undermine. Compared to him, she’s a tourist at Minters. And for many in the legal world, her intervention smacks of a kind of naivety about the reality of what lawyers do, which is to often work for people out of favour in the court of public opinion.
One former (female) Minters employee suggested that Kimmitt’s demise was largely down to a profound misunderstanding of legal professional ethics. She felt that a male boss could well have faced similar scrutiny for so publicly undermining a top partner without going through the right process.
Kimmitt’s intervention also seems weird given Minters’ history. This is a corporate law firm after all. It’s worked for Crown and the Catholic Church. It’s in the business of helping people accused of terrible things.
But this was also an intervention where Kimmitt picked the side without the power. Her email was, it seems, a poorly-worded attempt to reassure younger, female members of staff that the firm still had their back no matter who they might be working for.
So far, the outrage directed at that attempt at managerial empathy has come from the AFR, the paper of the bosses. Those younger female employees didn’t feel as comfortable speaking to the media.
But generational issues like this one are becoming the norm in workplaces across the world. Publishing, for example, has been ripped apart over the question of whether to keep airing the views of racist reactionaries.
Many younger lawyers at firms like Minters frequently have to reconcile the kind of standard inner-city progressive politics a boomer columnist might snootily deride as “woke” with the reality of drawing a big salary from a culturally conservative place that largely helps out the big end of town.
It was only a matter of time before a dispute like this blew up.
MinterEllison tried to be a “woke” law firm and an old-school corporate titan. It is hard, if not impossible, to be both.
This insistence that somehow legal ethics required Minters to act for Porter is nonsense. Firms make choices every day about who they will and won’t act for. Unlike barristers, solicitors can turn a paying client away simply because they don’t want to act for them – especially when acting for Porter would conflict them out from advising any of their regular major media clients who might want to publish the allegations against him.
Would Minters have agreed to act for anyone else who walked in off the street accused of (but denying) raping a child 30-odd years ago? Of course not.
Which begs the question, did Porter get special treatment from the firm because he is A-G and controls $93m of government spend at the firm? And how is that not a form of collateral benefit to a Minister?
Can you give examples of law firms turning clients away like that? Law firms have no more justification in rejecting clients because they don’t like them than, say, medical professionals. Doctors treat patients according to their medical needs; lawyers advise clients according to their legal problems. There can of course be some selection according to professional specialisation. A paediatrician is unlikely to attempt dentistry and a criminal law practitioner might not get involved in a property boundary dispute. But that does not involve pre-judging the client’s history or morals.
On what basis do you say Minters would not represent the hypothetical client you talk about? Do you know anything, or are you just making up stuff out of your prejudice to bolster your argument?
And your final paragraph – it does not ‘beg’ the question (rather ironically in the circumstances, begging the question comes from debating and refers to treating the question being debated as settled one way when it is still being debated). I don’t think it even raises the question, as it is quite separate. It looks like again you are speculating wildly on the basis of nothing, but yes, if a minister gets a benefit it should be declared. What do you actually know, except Porter is getting advice, which tells us nothing at all about special treatment?
Fist principles – everyone, no matter the alleged crime, is entitled to representation.
Absolutely. But not necessarily by a major national commercial firm.
Rather than “..not necessarily by a major national commercial firm” perhaps they could seek help from a failed conveyancing solicitor from Earlwood?
I can think of one who done good for hisownself so he must have had some smarts… or realised the public is as dumb as a bag of rocks.
Perhaps the more pertinent question is who is paying for the his top-draw legal representation.
Pertinent in what respect? Is the source of funds in any way contingent upon the facts of the matter.
Such is a question that you are obliged to answer in order to justify the application of the world ‘pertinent’!
Probably us.
Denning pointed out, sixty odd years ago, that negligence is not to be differenciated by the nature of the the damage, which, if you can see the point (or join the dots) negates your assertion.
It behoves you to clarify for the kiddies that you meant Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, Law Lord and Privy Councillor.
A great defender of Common Law especially when it was threatened by black letter law, as so often occurs when talentless government lawyers are bored or in need of a new wing of the family mansion.
Sorry, Agni, but who else for god’s sake :). Thanks for qualifying for me in any event.
Ratty – While my personal preference for begging the question aligns with the traditional meaning, I note Sue Butler (Macquarie Dictionary) concludes her discussion on this issue in her book “Rebel Without a Clause”, pp 114-115, with “Since the expression ‘beg the question’ was opaque to begin with, it comes as no surprise that we have re-arranged it and given it a new meaning that makes sense for us. These days to ‘beg the question’ means “to invite that question to be asked’. An initial statement immediately leads to another question which really has to be asked. It begs or invites the question.”
So these days I just let it pass.
So do I usually, but the connection with the origin of the alleged crime was just too much for me to resist.
The common excuse for bad grammar & poor expression – “common usage” – is begging the question in its original sense.
Perhaps ‘bugging’ the question is more appropriate?
Terminological inexactitude certainly bugz the bejazus outa me.
Barristers are ethically bound to take on any client who’s needs are within their expertise and who can pay their fee. Solicitors are not. It is common for law firms to have a policy not to act for tobacco companies. It is also very common – almost universal in my experience – that major national and international commercial law firms will not act for individuals. Not just Minters – I doubt that the hypothetical client would be taken on by any of the firms in that group in the absence of a collateral benefit (e.g. acting for the CEO of a major corporate client).
I stand corrected on beg v. raise.
“It is also very common – almost universal in my experience – that major national and international commercial law firms will not act for individuals.”
won’t act for individuals?… um it was their defamation practice, by default that would mostly involve acting for individuals!
Not so. Most plaintiff defamation work is done in smaller boutique firms.
Pete Bartlett heads up the media practice so usually works for media companies, not individuals.
I was not referring to Peter Bartlett. Take the trouble to read the comment.
In 2021, in the current climate, senior managers with an understanding of divisive social issues and concern for the female members of their staff might consider crafting an internal communication acknowledging the pain that has been triggered for some by the circumstances, while ALSO confirming the rationale for taking on Porter as a client. Am I assuming too much emotional intelligence? Yes, I am.
To recap: a woman has died in unbearably tragic circumstances, leaving behind a well-documented and very serious accusation calling into question the integrity of the first law officer of the land. That accusation is not being investigated and the only person who has so far been held accountable in connection with it is a female CEO – essentially because she was concerned about the welfare of her staff.
Also this quote: “a marketing and communications consultant who has worked with law firms for the past 20 years, said she hoped “people wouldn’t see this as a gender issue”.” Hahahaha
Separately, and also tragically, thousands of young women from Sydney and all over the country have posted online testimonials of their experiences of sexual assault and rape. They’re not even demanding that anyone be held to account for what they’ve endured, they are simply asking for better education on sex and sexuality. So far as I can tell, no-one is calling for a full police investigation.
For insights as to how we might have arrived at the current impasse, go read “teachusconsent.com” (trigger warning: the testimonials are harrowing and heart-breaking).
If it wasn’t for your first paragraph, aside from overloading the adjectives, you post could pass for a defense of stupidity in the workplace. She occupied a major chair for gods sake.
Nope. I am saying that staff welfare is a legitimate concern within the remit of a CEO. Yes she is at fault, but those managing the client relationship (which went back some months) should’ve also been aware of the potential impact of the rape allegations on staff.
Those managers could have been front-footed and worked with the CEO on an appropriate internal communication.
As the author indicates, this mess is due to workplace dysfunction. The CEO is by no means completely responsible for that. She should have been held to account for her actions, but could have been disciplined in a way that fell short of an ousting.
As K notes, law firms commonly have a policy governing client engagement. Some staff may expect their firm to act according to its stated “Purpose and Values”.
What many young and not so young women (and men) may see is a female CEO espousing modern values, who got firmly and swiftly put in her place by the big boys for daring to suggest those values should actually apply in real life. It is more complex than that, but the big picture looks pretty distasteful. After all it’s 2021 not 1951 for gods sake.
Modern values? “It’s a law firm! Julia Gillard and all of that. Chuck in Julie Bishop too.
I’m sure that any law firm has inductions but the employees have also read a thousand cases or so of the behaviour of societies finest individuals. Sorry. Jeesss.
OK. I think you’ll find Julia Gillard strongly believes that law firms need to modernise. Check the quotes from her IWD address on Monday.
I take it you don’t think firm management needed to concern itself with staff welfare or morale in connection with the Porter engagement. I disagree with that.
This is a huge firm. Odds are that a number of staff have direct personal experience of sexual assault or rape (no need to “read a thousand cases”).
It sounds like those people were front of mind for Ms Kimmitt. She may have been mindful that for some, the news could exacerbate existing trauma. Apart from anything else, that could affect employee attendance and performance.
To be clear – I’m not saying the firm should have refused to take the client, and I agree the CEO was at fault. She sent a poorly crafted internal email and should have been held accountable.
But in the last five years there has been a massive increase in awareness around sexual assault and rape and the trauma they cause. Being a modern leader (even in a law firm) means, at minimum, no longer turning a blind eye to these issues.
Here, people may see a female CEO ousted essentially for raising concerns about the welfare of staff, some of whom may be survivors of sexual assault or rape. People may find that particularly galling where a client of the same firm has been accused of rape but is not being investigated.
That’s a simplification, but in my view Kimmitt should be been disciplined, not ousted.
OK. Point recognised. It is a view.
I’m not without some decades in management myself. A comprehensive induction with a verbal assessment component ought to suffice. Being clear on the objectives of the firm and understanding one’s position in the firm ought to eliminate the ad-hockey which was displayed in this instance.
There is always a protocol, particularly in large firms, for “raising concerns about the welfare of staff”.
Lastly, a big part of maturity is to be clear on one’s values and ethics. I have thanked the interviewer and excused myself on about 50%+ of all interviews. There have been only two occasions where I have made the wrong decision which I attribute to a combo of youth and naivety.
Yep, I agree with your comments in the second paragraph. And yes, clarity on one’s values and ethics is essential. Have a good evening.
She wasn’t fired for raising concerns around staff welfare, she was fired for fundamentally misunderstanding the role of a law firm in providing advice to anyone who needs it. Add to the fact that she didn’t consult with the person providing the advice, which means she had no idea on which case or issue the legal advice was being provided for. All in all, not up to the role of ceo unless a different standard is to be applied.
Minters turned down working for one of the big tobacco firms (I can’t remember which one) because they felt it didn’t fit with their “purpose”. So it seems that they can and do (occasionally) choose who to represent.
Not true. They have acted for tobacco cos.
Excellent analysis, K. The AG’s control of “…$93m of govt spend…” at ME should demand transparency re ME’s defamation advice/work done for the AG in relation to the 4 Corners episode, the size of the AG’S fees and who pays ie the taxpayer or Porter?
It has been publicly reported that Porter is to pay for his own legal advice. Whether every 6-minute unit worked is charged, and what (if any) discount he gets on standard hourly rates (which for a partner of Bartlett’s standing would likely be in the $850 – $1,100/hr range) is unknown.
Ta, but still not a good look given the Govt is a large ME client.
I was surprised to see Pete Bartlett associated with Porter as well. Given he is usually on the other side of the desk and has even said that he can’t act against his clients, what is the point? I agree with your other points as well.
“This high-profile woman is the first person to lose their job in the fallout from historical rape allegations levelled against Christian Porter.”
I remarked the same to my wife this morning, irony dripping from my tone.
Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the entire boomer and older group have left corporate life and a new culture sets in. We may look back on these foetid days of culture warring as being rather quiet in comparison. Of course the war isn’t won, the old patriarchy may yet propagate.
I also thought the email brave, but also heartfelt, at least what was quoted. I don’t think males have quite understood just how much anger there is among women in Oz at the moment. Jessica Irvine’s comments on TV, which I didn’t watch but saw on Media Watch, might just give you/us an idea.
But will it change their vote, or preferences?
No, people vote on their economic interests and not some temporary issue which is being pushed for political ends.
So, a woman being (allegedly) raped by the AG is a “temporary issue”? A woman raped in the parliament is a “temporary issue”?
There’s a woman killed every week in Australia by their own so-called partner. “Domestic” violence they call it.
Temporary issue… yes, they’ll try to once again bury it because it doesn’t help the male misogynist culture in this country.
It is the electorate that you have to convince and not Slugbucket Zeke.
Consider the election of May 2019. Was the electorate engaged at all with the moral components or was it just about wallets?
On reading Kimmitt’s published email Sir Humphrey’s description sprang to mind ie: courageous.
And so it proved.
Wrong side of the company, right side of history.
Thank you for this article, Kishor. Great job.
Not according to Ben Shairo Ruv as Cpt. 1 (The Pursuit of Happiness) and Cpt. 9 (The Return to Paganism) of the subject book make clear.
The correct approach would be to resign and then vent if she intended to but manners are nowhere to be seen nowadays.
Making a comment at the coffee percolator is one thing but the proselytism amounted to quite a presumption.
Oo, it’s been a while since anyone quoted Shapiro at me in debate, Erasmus.
Of all the places to quote him as authority, I probably wouldn’t have picked Crikey’s comment section, but… points for bravery anyway! 😀
Regardless, you wrote: The correct approach would be to resign and then vent if she intended to but manners are nowhere to be seen nowadays.
I tend to distinguish integrity (upholding principle over self-interest) from manner (adhering to the custom set by privilege.) I think you could have as easily made the point that integrity demanded resignation even if custom didn’t.
But either way I’m not sure that I agree. I think she might have been sensitive to issues that the male partners weren’t — including the high rate of young female lawyers (graduation ratios are 2:1) and presumably aware that they were unlikely to be impressed by the firm who recruited them taking this side.
I think it was likely sensible internal management explaining that this was a commercial decision and not a moral or political one… subsequently quoted outside its intended context and doing the commercial harm it had actually intended to avoid.
So I’ll call it a failure of political wisdom, but not a failure of integrity or moral sensitivity.
But it’s part of the public avalanche now. Nobody really cares what happens inside Minter Ellison, except to the extent that it reflects the public interest.
Shaparo lays it on a bit thick, here and there: agreed – but (just consider the events of 6 Jan) we, as a society, are reneging on everything that provided concepts of freedom of expression in the first place. The identity brigade, enlisting, Foucault etc,
are intent upon clubbing what passes for civilisation to death.
As to matters of authority I’m happy to receive factual and sustainable objections.
Manners are set by the dominant class and thus by “privilege” but such is not a bad result; i.e. not intrinsically bad and common to all cultures. For those that claim otherwise it is for them to identify the inherent harm. Manners and integrity, in my assessment here, complement one another.
The conduct of Blair, over Brexit, is an example of rather good form. It is the difference between being a Statesman and a politician.
I claim to know nothing of the former CEO but, estimating from the photograph, she would seem to have something like 25 years of corporate experience so I doubt that she was “sensitive” to office politics or anything else, given her occupation and presumed familiarity with the failings of the public.
As per her position, a significant leadership role, the course of her interview could not have done other than to emphasise
her role, responsibilities to staff, public persona, relationship to current and new clients and an eye for detail. She “misered” on the lot!
You have some interesting points, Erasmus, as always. In particular:
Not really on-topic, but I don’t believe the freedoms we enshrine today — built as they are on Deist presumptions of an intrinsic and universal moral order — are scalable, sustainable or especially well-formed.
I agree that they can produce benefit and that something is needed to ensure constructive participation in decision-making. I just don’t accept that ‘freedom’ for its own sake makes sense in a contested, entropic environment of finite resources. It is at best, a means to an end — and we have to decide the end ethically.
To coin a phrase, this argument might be called cherry-picking the straw-man, Erasmus: we aren’t arguing over all cultures; just the post-colonial patriarchal fag-end in its present multicultural milieu. And we don’t have to claim that all manners are harmful to note that appeals to custom and tradition by the privileged also render normative and invisible any systematic disrespect.
So I’d suggest that the counter-argument you need to make is not that today’s manners are benign: it’s to nominate the minimum reasonable evidence which would persuade you that systematic disrespect exists, is doing significant, selective and unmitigated harm, and that custom and privilege are hiding it.
(For my part I’d be happy to nominate the minimum evidence that would persuade me that a specific claim of systematic disrespect is overstated and cherry-picked, since doubtless, some of claims also are.)
In any case, such declarations could rapidly resolve the issue under contention, namely: whether Ms Kimmitt was addressing a real moral concern that happened to compete with a commercial decision and thus trying to manage corporate ethics and commerce simultaneously, or simply proselytising to staff.
Thanks for giving me, yet again, something to think about for some number of hours Ruv.
The remarks are on-topic to the extent that (1) Porter’s assessed character [let’s assume a prized “C.”] is an irrelevance to to the presumption of innocence and the issue of a defense for him.
(2) The increase in post truth at the expense of institutions is a near given [conceded that such being a topic in itself]. The discussion is very much about culture per se.
Thirdly, I am not promoting the (could one say) “woke” concept of freedom. Rights are to be apportioned in a manner consistent with the acknowledged rights of others. I’m sure that I don’t need to dwell on the matter to you. It is in this context (the classical context) that I appeal to the
word ‘freedom’. Voltaire or Bengie Franklin if one prefers!
Regarding to your 3rd to last paragraph the “disrespect” that exists is played out in the parliament as I tap. The harm is the occasioning of the verifiable post-truth of which books are beginning to appear. The harm is ‘played out’ in what Tony Benn would describe as non-Christian values as DISTINCT from religious values.
There is quite a strong nexus between the old testament and (ancient) Greek ethos. The new political correctness is an attempt to compromise individual expression in the sense of The Enlightenment. Douglas Murray and others have got a fair bit to say on this matter.
The CEO has a right to an opinion but not to seek to polarise the firm. If she petitioned the Board (or similar) for a debate on the matter one would
anticipate such a discussion to have been forthcoming. As I say, read some of the essays that most of the judges at the IC have written for a context. Very Voltaire as a general hint.
Lastly, I’m a bit of a fiend for accurate data so, if you don’t mind, please identify where you think I have “cherry-picked”.
I, for one, are rather glad that we got from Galileo to a moon landing on the basis of empiricism alone and I’d prefer that such progress was not chundered on by woke or post-modernist “feelings over facts matter” drivel.
Apologies that I didn’t reply sooner to this Erasmus. I’ve been enmired in a sort of workplace purgatory over the last week, working to what one colleague has been calling ‘deadly daylines’.
Most of what I had to say above was chat, meant to be light and partly humorous. Its time may now have passed but I don’t doubt that we’ll pick up some core points again.
Thank you for the chat.
Watching two men debate about being a society & civilisation. Groan. The patriarchy wrote the rule book. All of it. Your ‘society’ & ‘civilisation’ are at best thin veneers. There is NO justice for women in a system designed by men. I dont have your legal training to spin this in big velvet gloved fists, but I can tell you that women are sick & tired of the patriarchy, is arrogance & its stupidity. The planet is dying & men who have 99.999% of the power, seem unable to comprehend their part in it.
Penny wrote: I can tell you that women are sick & tired of the patriarchy, is arrogance & its stupidity
Patriarchy is one abuse of institutional power Penny, but there are others too.
Dismantling patriarchal abuses is a priority but isn’t enough. As a single example I’ve had to deal with some heinous workplace bullying abuses by women upon women in female-dominated workplaces lately.
Beyond that, I agree that respect should extend to designing systems in collaboration.
But lumping all problems to one convenient ‘other’ is its own form of bigotry, abused by many people over many milieu.
If you genuinely embrace respect as a pathway to justice, demand respect at every turn, but don’t fall into that trap.
It was a very foolish email given that it also contained an inaccuracy, accusing Bartlett wrongly of not going through proper processes to represent Porter – he’d been engaged last November.
Given that lawyers represent accused paedophile, murderers, fraudsters, war criminals and more, it was a serious error of judgement for Kimmett to make out the Atourney General of Australia is any worse than these and accuse her colleague of doing the wrong thing.
No doubt it’s a sexist industry but Kimmett’s decision to go against basic legal principles and call out her own colleague I’m front of 2500 others by email (even if not by name, he was known) was really really dumb. You need better judgement than that to lead a law firm.