Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Gangland lawyer wins defamation case against Google

A gangland lawyer, who represented the likes of Mick Gatto, has won a $40,000 payout from Google over an article that suggested he was friends with criminals.

user iconNaomi Neilson 04 May 2020 Big Law
Google headquarters
expand image

Victorian lawyer George Defteros represented clients such as gangsters Mario Condello, Alphonse Gangitano and gangland figure Mr Gatto. In a 2004 article, first published with The Age, a journalist claimed he had crossed the line from lawyer to friend and confidant.

The article was about his arrest on conspiracy to murder charges, along with Mr Condello, against the gangland killer Carl Williams, his father George and another man. His charges were later dropped in 2005, and Mr Condello was murdered the day before his trial.

Mr Defteros had already sued the author John Silvester and colleague Andrew Rule over a chapter in their Leadbelly book based on the article and received $20,000.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Supreme Court Justice Melinda Richards ruled the article had defamed Mr Defteros, and the ordinary reader would have read between the lines to draw out The Age’s “derogatory implication that Mr Defteros had crossed the already blurred line”.

She said neither the article nor the Google search results indicated the charges had been dropped and Google had been made aware of the article in February 2006 but would not take action until December of that year. It was accessed 150 times in that period.

Justice Richards also found damage done to his reputation was tempered by the fact that he had known about the article since 2007 but did not act to have it removed until 2016.

She said he had also acknowledged a friendship with another underworld figure, Graham “The Munster” Kinniburgh. He did not deny this during court proceedings.

Justice Richards ordered Google to pay Mr Defteros $40,000 in damages.

A/N: A previous version of this article incorrectly suggested the payout was worth $400,000. This has been amended to reflect the true payout. 

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!