Jump to full article: The Australian (au), 2006-12-23
Author: Chris Merritt, Legal affairs editor
Intro: DESPITE being cleared of wrongdoing in the disastrous Rolah McCabe tobacco litigation, former Clayton Utz lawyer Richard Travers looks set to pay an enormous price for his involvement with big tobacco.
Mr Travers has already lost a partnership in the law firm founded by his family. And he will now be subjected to a second inquiry that looks set to ignore the rule against double jeopardy.
That inquiry, which was called this week, will cover exactly the same issues that were thrown out in 2003 when Victoria's former legal ombudsman Kate Hamond investigated the conduct of Clayton Utz lawyers in the McCabe case. . . .
But doubts have now emerged about the real purpose of the material that criticises Mr Travers. Clayton Utz has described the Travers material as "a preliminary internal review" that had been prepared without information or comment from the people concerned.
It was drawn up at the height of the media frenzy triggered by the publication in April 2002 of the Eames judgment and before the exoneration by the Court of Appeal in December that year, and the legal ombudsman the following year.
A spokeswoman for the firm said there was "nothing new" in the material that had been supplied to Mr Hulls.
Jump to full article » |