Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
One of Australia’s biggest law firms has responded to claims that accounting giant KPMG threw it under the bus by making public claims they had investigated, and then dismissed, explosive whistleblowing allegations.
Sensational evidence about the limited involvement of Ashurst in KPMG’s response to whistleblower allegations has raised fresh questions over just how willing the accounting giant was to investigate the claims.
On Friday, independent directors Jane Hemstritch, Patty Akopiantz, and the now resigned Mike Baird fronted the parliamentary inquiry to repeat claims the BigLaw firm was called on to conduct an external investigation into claims that partners used confidential information to win audit work.
They said Ashurst’s investigation turned up no wrongdoing.
However, just hours later, three representatives of Ashurst said they were retained to provide pieces of advice on three occasions during 2025, but at no point were they asked by KPMG to conduct an external investigation.
Referring to an email in which this claim was also made, inquiry chair, Senator Deborah O’Neill, asked the Ashurst representatives whether it concerned them its name was used “to present erroneous information”.
“I see that email as being a mistake and clearly that’s not correct on our evidence. We were not asked to conduct an investigation, and I wouldn’t go beyond that,” global chief executive officer Paul Jenkins said.
“All we can say is what the facts are, which is that we were not involved in an investigation, and leave the conclusion up to others.”
Senator Paul Scarr, another committee member, said he took “issue” with the characterisation of the email as a “mistake”.
“The independent director we received evidence from earlier today was of the view Ashurst … had been engaged to conduct an external investigation into the concerns of the whistleblower, which was being overseen by the independent directors. But that was not true, was it?” Scarr asked.
Jenkins replied: “That’s not true.”
Tania Lawrence, a committee member for the Labor party, said the committee had been misled and sought to understand the extent to which KPMG had made the “unsubstantiated claims” about the investigation.
“I am trying to understand how this has affected your reputation, where you guys are being thrown under the bus and essentially presented as a shield for their incompetence,” Lawrence put to Ashurst.
Ashurst partner Lea Constantine responded: “What we are here to do is tell you exactly what we did do. What we did do is provide advice, we did not undertake an investigation of the allegations that are the subject of this inquiry, so I think that is as far as we can take it.”
Allens, which did conduct an investigation, also appeared before the inquiry but was restrained from providing too much information about the extent of the advice it presented and how that may have been used.
Asked whether the firm stood by the quality of its work, managing partner Richard Spurio said he “absolutely” did because they “did a great job”.
Pressed on the assumption that KPMG have “basically blamed you”, Spurio was asked whether the accounting firm has requested Allens to pay compensation.
“I don’t accept they are blaming us. There hasn’t been any suggestion from KPMG that I am aware of that we botched that work.”
Jenkins also responded to the question about the quality of work offered to KPMG: “We absolutely stand by our advice, we see it as the highest standard and acted with diligence, seriousness and rigour.”
Right before the firms wrapped up their session at the inquiry, Constantine admitted Ashurst had some concern about their reputation but again made it clear it presented advice “in accordance with the instructions we got”.
“I just want to make it very, very clear. You raised the word ‘independence’; lawyers have to act independently, we do act independently, it’s the way we are trained. The rigour we have, the quality of the work we did, certainly from our firm’s point of view, we stand by that,” Constantine said.
Much of the committee’s questions went unanswered, with both firms citing that they fell under KPMG’s claims of legal professional privilege.
Questioned on whether the NSW Law Society was surprised by any of the evidence given Ashurst and Allens, president Ronan McSweeney said there did not appear to be any issues, “but I’m not across all the facts or details so I am reluctant to comment on the circumstances in which they gave advice unless I was across all those details”.
Chair of the ethics committee, David Miller, added: “I think it’s important to note that lawyers, solicitors are obliged to follow their clients’ lawful, proper and competent instructions.”
“There was nothing I heard in the evidence from Allens or Ashurst this afternoon that would indicate to me they haven’t done that,” he added.
When Senator Barbara Pocock suggested the committee has “seen a piece of theatre here today that is performative” – but specifically the evidence of the independent directors – she questioned whether the firms have been used as a “shield” for KPMG.
“I think you go back to the whole notion of proper and lawful instructions,” Miller said.
“It would be entirely improper for a law firm to be complicit in a deliberate attempt to misuse client privilege. I don’t think there is anything in the evidence I have heard this afternoon that implies that is the case for Allens or Ashurst.”
