Clayton Utz would not be acting contrary to the RFS interests to do that which the RFS are asking them to do. If the RFS’ instructions are to conduct a thorough and frank investigation that is because the RFS thinks it is in their interest to find that. People go to lawyers because they want independent advice, they want the lawyer’s opinion on the rights and wrongs of the situation. Inquiring into matters and perhaps finding evidence of wrongdoing is not ‘biting the hand that feeds them’ if the RFS want to find that information. They may agree with the volunteer’s claim they may not but unless you think they’re dishonest I cannot see any reason to think that would be compromised by having acted for the RFS in other matters, or that the RFS expects them to find every argument to say that there has been no wrongdoing. Clayton Utz will come to their own view on whether the ‘appropriate process was followed’ or the ‘action taken / penalty imposed was appropriate’. If you think that is their role, then you will be disappointed and may think that evidence of a conflict but as I say that’s not their task.
Clayton Utz are not being asked to advocate for the volunteers or argue the volunteers cause to the RFS. The mere fact Clayton Utz has acted for the RFS in earlier matters will be irrelevant unless those very matters are the subject of the review. I don’t see an essential conflict of interest. I have also obtained a statement outlining the scheme – see. There doesn’t seem to be a clear and precise statement from the RFS commissioner to that effect.ģ: What assurances should a volunteer, who is thinking of using the Clayton Utz option, look for to know they will be given a fair hearing. Dose the RFS use the services of Clayton UTZ in other matters and as such Clayton Utz would not want to Bite the hand that feeds them so to speak in handing down a finding of that the RFS got it wrong.Ģ:If Clayton UTZ find that the RFS “got it wrong” will the RFS “Put it right”. The process will enable members to seek a review of serious matter/s they reported in the past three years, where the member doesn’t believe that the appropriate process was followed, or that the outcome wasn’t appropriate.ġ: Isn’t there a conflict interest here. Recently the NSW RFS announced that they would appoint the law firm of Clayton UTZ to undertake an independent review process relating to previous claims of serious conduct matters. Attached to the email sent to me was a broadcast email from the Commissioner that you can see here.
Today’s correspondent writes about a review by the NSW RFS into claims of misconduct.
0 kommentar(er)
