Law firm Sly and Weigall has responded to the Burbidge inquiry saying that no one giving evidence to the inquiry criticised the handling of the matter by the firm and that Mr Burbidge had found that the firm had acted with integrity and propriety in acting for ACTTAB.
Mr Burbidge found, “”I find that the legal advice tendered by that firm did not lack any integrity of propriety.”
Mr Burbidge was critical of the firm for not providing material relating to a change of shareholding in VITAB without ACTTAB approval to senior counsel briefed to advise on what ACTTAB should do. However, Sly and Weigall said it did not accept this criticism as valid. It points out that Mr Burbidge himself found that the issue had been canvassed with senior counsel on July 15, 1994, before termination of the VITAB contract.
In any event, Mr Burbidge found that the failure did not cause any damage; that it was appropriate advice; and that ACTTAB, as advised by Sly and Weigall, had no choice but to settle and that a better result could not have been obtained.
In reporting on Mr Burbidge’s findings The Canberra Times suggested yesterday that Mr Burbidge had found that Mr Miller’s advice to ACTTAB fell short of what a competent solicitor would have provided and that his advice had been defective. Mr Burbidge did not make those findings.
Mr Burbidge found that from the perspective of four of VITAB principals, Kolomanski, McMahon, Bartholomew and Tripp, that the compensation payment should not have been received. But he did not find that the legal advice to pay VITAB as a company was defective. Rather, he found that ACTTAB had no choice but to settle.
The Canberra Times apologies to Mr Miller and Sly &Weigall for any embarrassment caused.