Sydney’s party prop outlets are believed to be on high alert following confirmation that the city’s summer clerks were granted a reprieve from suffering for the sins of their forebears and will be treated to a party featuring alcohol in early 2004.

Law firms adopted a hard-line stance after this year’s batch of pimply prodigies took the concept of a “bash” a little too literally. Aside from smashing a $6,000 giant Oscar statue, the finest young legal minds in the land embarrassed their generous benefactors with an ugly performance starring violence and theft. (This memorable occasion can be relived in full on the front page of Lawyers Weekly, 21 February 2003).

Knowing they had to come down hard on perpetrators to maintain the veneer of a squeaky-clean image with the wider community, HR representatives of the firms concerned (most of whom were not present to enjoy the evening’s festivities) pledged that there would be no sequel. Promises in the wake of a leaked remedial memo screeched the only social event that would take place in coming years would be at the start of internships.

It was wisely reasoned that at the beginning of their stints, the little darlings would be eager to impress and thus more likely to reject any temptation to take several three-metre high fibreglass statues on crowd-surfing safaris.

But, as Folklaw recently discovered, time heals all wounds. Rather than getting their chance to bond in the relatively risk-free environment of the local McDonald’s playground, the kiddies will instead enjoy not one, but two shindigs.

We’re not sure of the locations, but it’s certain one of the bashes will be held midway through — as opposed to at the commencement of — the clerkships in January.

Venues looking for a well-behaved, mature set of Australia’s best young intellectual ambassadors to grace their premises are advised to treat any enquiries with the utmost caution.

VIEW ALL

Cracker fired in festive war

After months of anticipation, the first shot in Adelaide’s Christmas card bidding war was fired earlier this month, with Kelly & Co. revealing the lucky winner of the firm’s design competition.

As reported by Folklaw way back in the pre-Yule traces of August, the mid-tier and South Australian rival Fisher Jeffries decided to go head-to-head like a pair of juiced up reindeer to seek out the most flattering Christmas card to send to clients.

With millions of dollars of work hinging upon the response to their festive greeting, both firms spared no expense in attracting the state’s best young artists to come up with a design.

But while Fishers continues to keep everyone guessing as the big day approaches, Kellies went out on a limb by announcing Anna Austin’s ‘cracker’ design (pictured) would be their card of choice this year.

For her cardboard and glue-related troubles, Anna scored $2,000. No reason was given as to why Kellies chose the bon bon to bear its fortunes, although Xmas decoration experts say a significant adversarial element shared by traditional cracker exchanges and the law probably played a role.

Huff and puff

There’s a pretty well-founded perception out there that plaintiff lawyers do it tougher than most of their opponents who comfortably recline on huge retainers from insurance companies.

That may be so, but surely the bleeding hearts couldn’t be that hard up if last week’s pledge of support for a smoking ban in pubs and clubs is anything to go by.

Think about it: if there’s no one smoking in the vicinity, there’s no chance abstaining bartenders and the like will contract deadly and potentially financially rewarding tobacco-related illnesses. And if that’s the case, one more class of litigant (customer) will stop walking through the doors.

We’re not sure if the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association put its mind to this, but if that was the case then good for them.

It’s not often a bunch of lawyers will voluntarily and simultaneously shoot themselves in the foot and hip pocket for the sake of society’s wider good.

Defensive drinking

It’s fair to say that reversing into a cop car when you’re over the limit would be a rather embarrassing, let alone incriminating pursuit.

But we reckon doing just that when you’re a defence lawyer who makes a habit of getting under police skin would virtually be the definition of ultimate humiliation.

To be sure whether or not we’re right, you’ll have to ask civil libertarian Terry O’Gorman. The mildly famed Queensland solicitor was last week hit with a fine and licence disqualification after pleading guilty to attempting to put his vehicle in motion with a blood alcohol limit of more than .05.

Considering he sent the car crashing into a police vehicle parked behind, reasonable logic would recommend O’Gorman was somewhat beyond the limit. Far from laying claim to the title of ‘Toxin avenger’, however, O’Gorman registered only 0.051, meaning he was breaking the law by the slimmest of margins.

Folklaw can’t help but wonder what would have happened if he chose a career with the DPP.