Congratulations everyone who has worked on this, and on the proposal for a way forward. So much learning will come from this process, and I’ve certainly been challenged to stop and think through the different ways people see things. What’s fact and what’s opinion? Or assumption? Are their other things we don’t know yet? Is everybody being listened to?
I do think it would have been really helpful at the outset if we’d had a clearer explanation of how Helen came to be the UCOL lawyer. Even though I was probably told when we became involved, I found Rachel’s explanation last week useful.
Some of the comments not included — such as Anne's recent one on assuming one is a client of a practice rather than of an individual lawyer, and also Juan’s about the necessity to have a big name legal firm, made me think perhaps I should add my 2cents about legal culture.
Re legal firm’s prestige, a name can be a facade. I have just checked and found, yes, oh dear, there is still a legal firm in Gore headlined Smith, even though it’s 20 years since the last Smith (my father) died. But not even my parents kept their business with that firm and I will say no more as this is an email!! It is of course common in business for the market value of a name to be part of a sale transaction, then it can become self perpetuating. In the case of the firm I understood was called Polson Macmillan, I’ve just checked and found they restructured as just last November and Polson is gone, along with some other names of lawyers whose practices have been absorbed.
There was a reference at one stage to Helen not notifying UCOL that she had left the firm as though that was a black mark against her. In fact she may not have been allowed to— firms guard clients jealously and would most certainly like to perpetuate the idea that clients belong to firm, not the individual lawyer. How you as the client feel about this is of course entirely your own business and you are free to upsticks and take your business (and your files) wherever you feel you will be best served.
The other counter point to the argument about UCOL needing a big established firm is that last year's Bazley report for the Law Society finally addressed issues young women lawyers have been talking about for years — that legal culture is deeply misogynist. This is why so many women have turned their backs on fighting for a place in the big firms and gone out on their own account in small practices. You will all presumably have heard of Russell McVeagh, one of the biggest, most ‘prestigious’ and the nastiest of the lot.
I am NOT putting any this as an argument against Macmillan and co, just saying don’t be fooled by size and appearances.
I’m glad Antony Hamel was consulted (though I’m not sure how that happened) as it was a path I had been thinking of suggesting. He’s our lawyer and was always genuinely interested in the project. The fact he now has six UCOL purchasers as clients gives him a rock solid strong interest in having the project succeed.
If the group cannot get a clear agreement at this next meeting I think having him attend the next to help clarify issues would be really helpful. He can give an expert opinion on some things that we as a group have really guessed at.
I do not favour the path of turning the decision over to those who have strong feelings about it — I don’t think it’s fair on them — or contributes to us all owning the problem of conflicting views, whether it’s about professional representation or what goes on the top of the Christmas tree. (Ask someone who was at the American cohouser's talk if you don’t get that.)
Some time a discussion topic might be ‘How I chose my lawyer”. Here’s mine: I chose Antony because I remember him as a small and likeable boy (I know his Mum.) i.e. I had longterm inside knowledge. I was really sorry I couldn't propose him as a compromise UCOL lawyer because of conflict of interest. He’s a very good bloke, supportive of his all-women team, and a very good problem solver. https://www.antonyhamellawyer.co.nz/antonyhamellawyer.co.nz/Antony_Hamel.htm...
Cheers all (whether you’ve read to the end or not…) Rosemarie
On 5/06/2019, at 10:38 AM, Alex King via Ucol-shareholders ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz wrote:
As promised on Monday, here is the spreadsheet that lists pros and cons of the two suggested options for lawyers. I have included information originally from Catherine and Susan, and also from emailed comments to me or the list.
Note that there is a mixture of opinion and fact in the spreadsheet, and further work could be done to refine our understanding of which is which. There are still some outstanding comments which I have not had the time to address and include.
It may be that we decide to update this spreadsheet again, if the meeting tomorrow does not resolve the question. My understanding is that we are not planning to discuss lawyers tomorrow beyond the straw poll.
Thanks, Alex
<LegalRepresentation_AK_v3.ods><LegalRepresentation_AK_v3.pdf><LegalRepresentation_AK_v3.xlsx>_______________________________________________ Ucol-shareholders mailing list Ucol-shareholders@list.king.net.nz https://list.king.net.nz/listinfo/ucol-shareholders