Transcript
Hello everyone and welcome back
to the Australian Law Student
Podcast.
I'm your host Oliver Hammond and
in today's episode I was joined
by Mark Lawyers partner Damien
Straszka, A distinguished
partner in the Disputes
Resolution team at Mark Lawyers.
Damien has over 25 years
experience as a seasoned expert
specialising in international
arbitration and cross-border
disputes.
Beyond his legal practice,
Damien contributes globally
serving on international
committees and educating future
leaders in law.
It was a pleasure to sit down
with him and discuss a more
international perspective on the
law.
So without further ado, sit
back, relax, and enjoy the
podcast.
Hello everyone, and welcome to
the Australian Law Student
Podcast.
On today's episode, I have
Damien Sturziker, a partner from
Mark Lawyers.
Damien, thank you so much for
joining with me today.
Pleasure to be here.
I'll start off with my first
question and that's with your
extensive experience across
various jurisdictions.
Could you please please share
some key differences you have
encountered on your journey and
why you've decided to practice
in Australia?
Sure.
So, so I was lucky enough early
in my career to take up an
opportunity of going on
exchange.
So after working here in
Australia for a couple of years,
there was an organization which
is still called the Association
for International Young Lawyers.
And what they allow you to do is
to go and get placed in
different law firms overseas.
And at the time not speaking
another language.
I thought, well, I'll choose a
couple of locations where I know
I'll be able to practice in
English but still have an
experience of a foreign
jurisdiction.
So where I went to a few
countries in Scandinavia.
So I had time in both
Copenhagen, in Stockholm, and
also in Helsinki.
And that gave me a really good
exposure to a civil law system.
And I worked at law firms for
about three or four months in
various spots.
And the thing that struck me
both in that very early
experience and then subsequently
sort of as an international
lawyer where we deal with
foreign jurisdictions all the
time is it's not so much the
differences, it's more the
similarity of practice.
So you have an opportunity to
look at the way particularly our
focus is disputes and commercial
cross-border disputes.
The way that people approach the
resolution of disputes
fundamentally is the same
whether you're applying civil
law or common law.
So and the fundamental rules,
while there will be differences
in relation to say, legal
professional privilege or the
way in which even to some extent
professional ethics operate, the
coaching of witnesses is
absolutely encouraged in places
like the United States, but is
discouraged in common law
systems in Australia.
But for the most part, the way
that people approach law and
justice is fundamentally the
same.
So if you're analysing a case
and you're trying to work out
what's going to be the right
outcome, the instincts that you
develop as a common lawyer
studying here in Sydney or as a
foreign lawyer where you've
maybe undertaken your studies in
the Netherlands generally are
going to be the same.
Of course, you know, the, the
authorities that you reference
are going to be different, but
the way in which you apply them
is also going to be the same.
And suddenly, you know, the, a
lot of the practice that we do
here at Mark has been in
international arbitration and
arbitration's a great example of
this where you see a meshing and
a moulding of in many cases the
best of both common and civil.
So you have the civil law system
says, listen, we shouldn't have
overly complicated pleadings.
You really should state your
case and then there should be an
answer to that case.
And that's it should be written
in a narrative form, not in a
highly technical form.
So we see that we also see from
point of view of witness
statements that those witness
statements really should be
governing the way in which the
case is run.
It should be less about detailed
and lengthy cross examination.
So adopting the civil system,
which says, hey, let the
documents speak for themselves.
Don't ask witnesses to go on at
boring detail about what the
about what the documents does.
So for the most part I, you
know, I think I've learnt a lot
from different systems, but I
was very happy to return back to
Australia and practice
essentially an international
practice from here from Sydney.
Hmm.
And so learning about different
systems, I suppose, does that in
turn make you perhaps more
equipped and better skilled to
be in Australia and and a a
Commonwealth system?
I think I, I think any exposure
that you get to a different way
of doing things means that you
adopt A more flexible approach
and you've got a greater range
of options within sort of your
armoury to try and resolve
something.
So even if I'm dealing with like
a domestic arbitration, you can
say, well, hang on.
We had a recent one which was
provided for the option of a no
hearing.
So it was a matter that was
going to be heard just on the
documents.
And so that both raising that
with the other parties and with
the arbitrator and saying, well,
do we really need, is there any
real value in this case in
allowing for cross examination?
And given both the value of that
particular case, the issues
involved, it allowed us to sort
of explore that option.
So, so yeah, I think that you
can take the best of both
worlds, adopt it to your
situation here in Australia.
And also now if you're a sort of
a, if you're a budding young
international lawyer, the
opportunities for practice here
are much better than they were,
say, when I started doing it 30
years ago.
So, and, and so why do you think
that is?
I mean, I've talked to a couple
of barristers and it seems to me
that Australia for the size of
its country and perhaps for its
geographical location seems to
have quite a strong foothold in
sort of international legal
affairs.
Is, is that because there's a
lot of sort of cross-border
transactional work that's
happening in Australia sort of
overseas or I think it's?
I think it's a combination.
I think we have, we have
exceptional legal education.
So you know, Australian
universities are regarded very,
very well around the world,
including University of NSW,
University of Melbourne, you
know, rank very highly.
So we, we train our young
students really well.
They are eagerly sought after in
foreign jurisdiction.
So, you know, a lot of
Australian lawyers are
practicing in, you know, in
London, New York, in the
continent.
So that, that is something that
then what often happens is that
those people go away, they get,
you know, 3-4, ten years
experience internationally and
then come back.
So that has sort of, and that's
been not a recent thing.
That's something that's been
occurring decades.
So getting, you know, going
across and getting your
experience sometimes by way of
postgraduate study at places
like Oxford and Cambridge, but
other other times just going and
practicing has meant that we
that we get this great cross
fertilization and we get some
really good people.
The best example I can think of
just recently in relation to the
matters that are being heard
before the National Court of
Justice in relation to Israel.
You look at that and there are,
you know, there's Hillary
Charlesworth, who's one of the
National Court of Justice, just
judges.
Then you have Australian lawyers
who are acting as advocates in
those cases or are making
submissions.
So you sort of constantly see,
you know, Australians popping
up, yeah, in these international
law cases, which is great.
Yeah, Yeah.
That's exactly what I mean.
I mean, yeah, just sort of the
the Australians you continuously
see in the sort of international
law field is, is is really
interesting.
I suppose the yes, it is a
testament to the high quality
legal education that Australia
provides.
So, yeah, I suppose sort of
moving on, can you share any
insights into the key challenges
and perhaps strategies used in
some of the major cases that
you've been a part of?
Yeah, of course.
And I think, again, I sort of
reminded that a lot of the work
that we do here at Mark is
regarded as strategic
litigation.
And that that's not to detract
from the fact that, you know, a
case has to stand on its own
merits.
You can't bring a case that
doesn't have legal merit that
both as a lawyer that you are
prepared to sign off on and say,
you know, fundamentally have a
case.
But cases can be brought for a
variety of reasons with a
variety of outcomes.
And certainly here we've run
cases which might, you know, go
from anything to do with
mandatory detention, seeking to
overturn the government's
approach in relation to
mandatory detention, in relation
to refugees, through to
electoral law, through to
international law cases.
So, and in many cases what
you're seeking to do sometimes.
And we ran a case which related
to rules that have been imposed
by the Australian government
preventing people returning from
India during COVID.
And we were seeking to overturn
the right that the government,
sorry, the rights that the
government was seeking to assert
over preventing people from
returning.
Now during the pendency of that
case, the government changed the
laws.
And so whilst the case became
irrelevant, it it achieved the
outcome that it was seeking to
achieve, which is to allow
Australian citizens to return to
Australia without it being
prevented.
More recently a case that I've
had a heavy involvement in has
been the Qatar case.
So we are suing the government
of Qatar and Qatar Airways in
relation to a group of women who
were Australian women on a
flight back during the pandemic
and they were detained in Doha
Airport.
They were taken off the airport,
off the airplane and conducted.
Bodily searches were conducted
on them because an infant had
been found in a bathroom and
they, the Qatari authorities
were trying to find the mother.
So these women were conducted to
invasive body searches and, and
no recompense, no apology, no
efforts were made on the part of
the Qatar government to try and
deal with our group.
So we've brought proceedings
here in Australia against the
sovereign authority, the Qatar
government as well as the the
airline, saying that essentially
you've breached international
law, you've breached the
Montreal Convention and that
these women both deserve
compensation, amongst a whole
variety of other things that we
say they're entitled to.
Now, that's a case that clearly,
you know, it's no small feat on
the part of this group of women
to sue a sovereign.
In addition to that.
And simultaneously we have
conducted a campaign which has
included reaching out to the
government and saying to the
government, listen, the way in
which you're treating Qatar
Airways, perhaps you need to
look at whether or not they
should be granted additional
landing slots.
And there was a a lot of
attention paid to that.
And ultimately the government
decided not to grant Qatar
Airways landing slots, and that
caused a huge amount of
political storm.
In addition to that, we brought
proceedings before the OECD.
And what we saw from the OECD
was a declaration that Qatar
Airways had acted contrary to
the International Covenant on
Civil and Human Rights, and we
said that there should be a
finding there.
So if you like, we're running a
legal case that, you know,
operates within its own
conventions about whether or not
a sovereign can be held liable
for actions here.
But we're simultaneously running
a variety of other efforts on
the part of our clients to
achieve an outcome.
And that's what we, I think
lawyers need to be flexible if
they want to run these sort of
more complicated cases.
You need to be, at the end of
the day, you need to be a very
good lawyer to be able to run
cases, but you also need to be
strategic in the sort of
outcomes you're seeking to
achieve.
Yeah, yeah, I suppose does take
that a little.
Bit I mean.
Going back to the discussion
about the case with the people
come back from India, yeah, how
the government sort of changed
the law halfway through.
I mean, you mentioned that that
you you received the outcome
that you were looking to
receive, which was that the
government changed the law.
Would you in those cases, what
happens with proceedings?
I think at the moment a lot of
law students are doing federal
institutional law and so
something like standing is
relevant.
And I know that in some
instances, part sort of the
grief party still seeks for a
declaration is that is.
That, yeah, it is interesting.
And I guess that can be
challenging because we're a
private commercial law firm.
It can be challenging because
you see some of these pieces of
litigation and in the case of
the India case, yet the
government changed the law.
But of course at that point,
either the case is then
discontinued and you have to
reach an agreement with the
other party in relation to
costs.
And again, that's ultimately a
position of negotiation.
But you certainly your clients
are in a situation where they
still could be liable for costs.
Taking a more recent example,
which not a matter that we're
acting on, but we're very
interested in, was the case
brought on behalf of electric
car owners in Victoria.
Yeah.
And the the proceedings that
were then brought and
prosecuted.
So in in that situation, you
have a situation where, yeah,
they're seeking a declaration.
There's not going to be an award
of damages.
So as a law firm, and that was
obviously brought by a private
law firm specialized in this
area.
In that case, the best case that
you're going to get is
potentially that the other side
might have to pay your costs or
you'll get the declaration, but
you'll never get a damages
award.
So in that situation, either the
the law firm may be then get
paid its costs or what it might
do.
And this is something that is a
really developing area is law
firms and their clients will
look to crowdfunding and they'll
crowdfund.
And we're running cases on
behalf of a a outspoken
protester who was objecting to
the actions being taken by Adani
in Queensland.
And Adani took actions against
him seeking that he be prevented
from taking those actions.
They obtained an injunction and
then he went to via GoFundMe and
has raised hundreds of thousands
of dollars in funding in order
to be able to try and overturn
those injunctions.
So there's alternative means of,
you know, achieving outcomes
because, of course, it's not
like law firms can operate on a
pro bono basis for everything.
They need to sort of, you know,
pay their young lawyers and,
and, and pursue, you know,
sustainable practice.
Yeah.
So, yeah.
But there's a variety of ways
now.
Yeah.
And that that crowdfunding I
think is in some notable cases,
I think there's some the spring
to definitely spring to mind.
So yeah, it's definitely
interesting how those things are
being funded.
And so with the Qatar Airways
case, you spoke a little bit
about sort of putting a little
bit of governmental pressure.
That's something that sounds
very unique to perhaps a law
firm that deals with more
international matters.
I feel like, I mean, there might
be in certain policy areas, if
the law firm sort of specializes
in tax, for example, there might
be some recommendations to the
government in sort of tax reform
and that sort of thing.
But in terms of speaking to the
federal government per SE and
trying to actually influence
sort of quite key international
policy sounds very unique to to
the area of international.
Law and certainly I I would
agree that that probably where
might probably take a more
aggressive approach in relation
to some of those issues and
certainly in relation to the
treatment of survivors in sexual
assault.
The work that one of my partners
here has done with the Grace
Tame Foundation has been about
changing legislation and the way
in which the assault of people
under the age of 18 has been
treated in legislation and and
that has resulted in a change in
the law.
So legislation has been changed
in various states to reflect
what we were seeing to achieve.
So that is that's an active
engagement with legislators and
say, listen, this needs to
change.
And so that sort of policy
advocacy, you know, it is
certainly law firms will adopt
that approach, particularly if
if the clients are on site in
saying this is something that
needs to change and we need to
deal with it not just by way of
a test case, but deal with it,
you know, at a more fundamental
basis.
So, but that's something that,
you know, we would regard in the
appropriate case as something
that you'd need to think about.
And sometimes it'll be, you
know, it won't be us, it'll be
lobbyists and it'll be other
people.
But something that we if it was
central to the legal issues in
the case that we think needs to
be pursued, then, then that's
something that we'll do.
And so I suppose again on that
vein is perhaps adopting this
sort of government sort of lob
sort of pressure, putting
pressure on the government.
Is that at times a bit
difficult, I suppose to
reconcile with perhaps a law
firm, which I suppose
traditionally isn't really seen
as sort of taking sort of a
approach to something I don't
know if that I know what's.
Correct.
Yeah, No, I know what you mean.
Like certainly law firms pride
themselves on their objectivity
and on their independence and,
and I guess we do as well, but
we recognize that there are some
things that require advocacy
and, and that you're entitled to
take a position on.
And, and I think we're proud to
do that.
That's something that some law
firms, and I understand also
there's often this dilemma
between the boutiques and big
law, and big law will have a
much harder job undertaking that
exercise because there are so
many interests.
They have clients across such a
wide spectrum.
There's a commercial hesitancy
to upset, you know, if you acted
for the Farmers Federation.
But on the other hand you had
you, you active the, the greens,
you might, there will be
tensions there.
So you end up not taking a
position on anything.
And we don't have those sort of
issues with, we're able to, to
manage that or we have a, some
more unified purpose with what
we're doing.
So and there's a role there for,
for, you know, BT firms.
So that aspect I, I agree with
you, not many law firms do, but
but I guess we're very happy
that we can.
Happy.
Yeah, exactly.
And so there's also, I suppose
the internal issues that that
come with big law in the fact
that you have, I suppose, higher
up people in higher up positions
that might have different,
different stances and that sort
of thing.
And so having a, a smaller law
firm, I suppose in that sense
means that you can sort of fight
it in sort of one, a unified
sort of.
It's virgin cognitive, yeah.
Marshalling everyone together.
Yeah.
You know, so we're we're ten
partners here.
It's much easier to have a
conversation with 10 partners
than 100 and.
Ten, Yeah.
Or in some cases 500.
Yeah, yeah.
So much easier to get a position
of unanimity.
And then we pretty much that's
the approach we adopt.
We won't do something if if
someone is dead set against it,
we'll only do it on a unanimous
space.
Yeah, so.
Yeah, that's good.
I suppose in a similar vein, can
you tell us about a case in in
your time that's particularly
proved to be a challenge or how
it contributed to your growth as
a legal practitioner?
I suppose lawyers often speak
about a certain case, or maybe
one or two cases that were
really formative in their legal
education was what were.
Yours, yeah, yeah.
I had a case where I received an
e-mail through an international
contact where a lawyer from
Nigeria said, look, I want to
instruct you on this case.
We're going to be seeing the
Commonwealth government and, and
instrumentality of the
Commonwealth government and I'm
going to be visiting Sydney.
Can I come in and see you?
And all of us have been
subjected to Nigerian scams.
And so I had a degree of
skepticism about anything.
And then anyway, one day I
literally turned up and there in
the waiting room was this lawyer
from Nigeria who was there, who
then explained to me what the
nature of the case was.
And it then led to probably six
years, years of litigation all
the way to the High Court where
we at the end of the day
recovered A damages award of
over 40 million Australian
dollars against.
At this point, the
instrumentality of the
government was responsible for
the development of plastic
banknotes.
And as you know, summarizing
what was a six year journey, but
essentially it was all about
these bank, the ability to
print.
And sell this technology is used
all over the world.
So the plastic pack notes the
Australian government wanted to
sell that technology to Nigeria,
one of the largest cash
economies in the world.
My client was the client who
introduced the the technology to
the Nigerian government.
He was the, the not the lawyer,
but his client was the person
who was very well connected with
the Nigerian government, was
responsible for passport
control, etcetera, secured the
contract.
The banknotes were rolled out
very successfully.
And then this instrumentality
terminated his contract as it
turned out fraudulently.
And they, they then embarked
into a whole bunch of other
shady deals.
And ultimately this thing called
the currency scandal emerged and
people were sent to jail both in
Australia and overseas.
But my client sat there having
had a very valuable contract
terminated wrongly and he said,
well, I'm not going to put up
with this and I, I will sue the
Australian government and the,
the in the instrumentality that
was that developed the
technology and had lined to him
about the circumstances of the
termination.
So, but where the challenge
emerged was that we, we ran the
trial before a single judge in
the Federal Court and we
received an order of 60 million
Australian dollars.
Now, quite frankly, I, I think
the damages that we were
actually seeking was something
like 30.
So at the time that it was when
something sounds too good to be
true, sometimes it is.
And not surprisingly, the full
federal Court overturned the
judgment.
So we had a situation where we
went from the client getting 60
to the full Federal Court said
actually, no, the trial judge is
an error and you can have three.
So our damage went from 60 to 3
million and we were faced with
the challenge of having to get
special leave to appeal to the
High Court and then get before
the High Court.
We, this was this at this point,
we were now in the pandemic and
we're actually the first trial
heard before the High Court
remotely.
So we, we had this weird
situation and we'd instructed,
you know, the very best of
counsel, etcetera.
And we, we turned up to the,
the, the High Court here, but
the judges of the High Court
were sitting all over Australia.
So they, you know, were dialing
in from Queensland, from
Canberra, from wherever.
Oddly enough, one of them was
actually sitting in a different
court up there in Queens Square.
But we were sitting in the
court, our opposition was
sitting in the court, but
everything was on audio, visual.
And so, yeah, it was the first,
first trial to be heard in that
format before the High Court.
And yeah, yeah, we subsequently
won.
So it was a very happy outcome
for us and the client.
And you know, fortunately, the
other side paid, paid the
damages that they had to pay.
That case is amazing in in
several ways, so yeah.
It was a it was a remarkable
case, but it was a remarkable
case in so many ways because our
client was disbelieved in some
respects by the trial judge, but
accepted in other respects.
And I was watching as I guess
20-30 thousand other people were
the Bruce Lemon hearing the
other day.
And there was reference made to
our case as being an authority
in relation to what do you do
when you don't accept someone's
evidence on a particular point,
but still in terms of credit,
you generally accept them as
credible witness.
So, so these things sort of
continue to resound.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Later on.
Well, that's amazing.
Thank you for listening to the
Australian Law Student Podcast.
The following segment is
Questions from the Bench.
Here we ask our guests a set
series of questions designed for
you to get to know them better
and to get the key advice to
help you on your journey.
Each week we also take a
question from you, our audience.
Head over to our socials and
send us a message to get your
question answered.
Thanks for listening.
Now.
We'll move on to some rapid fire
questions now.
These are questions that we ask
all our guests in order to get
to know the person a bit better.
And so starting from the first
one, what was your favorite
subject in law school and
perhaps.
Why maybe not surprisingly, it
was conflict of laws.
So and I just found that the
interaction between different
systems to be both like
intellectually really difficult
and engaging in trying to think
about law from a perspective
that wasn't the one that you'd
been taught for the previous or
four years.
So that I found that was a
subject that I really enjoyed.
Yeah.
Moving on to the next question,
what's 1 habit you believe has
been pivotal to your success in
the legal field?
I, I think fundamentally, I
think probably empathy, I think
it's probably, you know, that,
that, that ability to try and
understand what, whether it's
the other side's motivations or
your client's motivations.
But exercising that and quite
frankly, as you progress through
a law firm, you'll ultimately
become the supervisor of, of
people and having an
understanding of how, what
motivates people and you know,
what, what operates for them
effectively as someone who's
working as a junior lawyer.
And then again, quite frankly,
in the context of being a
partner, having an ability to
understand.
So, you know, whether you talk
about emotional intelligence or
just generally empathy, I think
that's a pretty important talent
in law.
And I think it'll probably also
make your life a little bit less
stressful.
Yeah, yeah, I'm thinking that
tip with, with regards to
empathy, I think is perhaps not
really thought of as perhaps
being a very sort of primary
function of a lawyer.
But I think when you sort of
boil it down to it, it really is
to, to, to really have empathy,
able to understand a client and
to understand, yeah, again, the
motivations of the various
parties involved is, is really
important and, and we'll make
you a better lawyer as a result.
And I think, I mean, in all
aspects of law where the
commercial negotiation or
transactional work, the ability
to read people is incredibly
important.
Yeah.
And we were involved in
negotiation yesterday.
And again, sort of as you're
negotiating with the other side
and you look at them and you put
a particular point and you go,
yeah, they've accepted that or,
you know, they want X.
But I know if I push harder,
they will ultimately relinquish
that.
Yeah, be able to read.
That is really important.
Move on to the third question.
Can you name a book or a movie
that's significant to you and
one you'd recommend to students?
Sure.
One that I thought had a bit of
an impact was Outliers by
Malcolm Gladwell and it's a now
a very, very well known book and
he talks about the 10,000 hour
rule.
And whilst on the one hand I'm
reluctant as as a law firm that
we people don't record time
here, it's about working
effectively, not about how many
hours you work, etcetera.
But the 10,000 hour rule is
about putting in the required
hours in terms of the
development of your expertise in
something.
And you know, whether it's, you
know, playing the violin or
whether it's law, but just over
time having an interest in what
you're doing.
And it might be, you know,
looking at something, looking at
a recent case on your phone, on
a bus on the way home or
whatever.
I think there's there's an
element where you have to have
put in the hours and or effort.
And the more effectively you do
it and the faster you do it,
great.
And you know, all, all power to
you.
But otherwise, I, I think, yeah,
yeah.
That that rule of the do have to
put in the effort.
You can't take too many
shortcuts.
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
I suppose on to the 4th
question.
For students aspiring to make an
impact in the in the world, is
there a particular skill or
quality you believe is is most
important for them to develop?
Yeah.
I mean, I guess I'd repeat
empathy.
I think, you know, to value your
time outside of work as well to
be balanced in the way that you
approach your practice and not
to be too intense.
Now I don't seek to sort of
contrast that with the whole
10,000 hour rule, but but you
will find that you get on better
with your Co workers and with
your clients if you have
something more to bring to the
table than just legal expertise.
And in a sense the way that
legal education operates is
obviously the thresholds get
into law are very hard.
It tends to drive a particular
person, a particular personality
into law.
Sometimes those people are not
actually very well practiced and
they're not very well suited to
the practice of law.
And so we do find, we've had
people here who you could not
fault the marks that they got at
university or back doing their
HSC, but but not actually that
good at being a lawyer.
And so filtering out those
people because ultimately
they're not going to find a love
of doing what they do.
And I think that also comes back
to curiosity.
If there was a quality that I
was looking for, it would be a
curiosity.
So a fascination with a whole
variety of topics and subjects
in law because each of them will
feed into the other.
Yeah.
So if you're curious and you
sort of, you know, your interest
is sparked in anything from you,
you know, international law
through to real property, then
you sort of go you, you'll end
up a better lawyer.
Enjoy, I suppose with with
interest comes enjoyment as
well, I think.
That's really important.
That's very.
True, under the fifth question,
did you always envision yourself
practicing in the field that you
do?
And if not, what did you think
you do?
Perhaps starting off in law
school, or perhaps even towards
the end of high school?
Yeah, yeah, I, I remember I when
I was in year 10, we had that
normal thing where you have work
experience.
Yeah, yeah.
And and I think we had two weeks
or some longer period.
Yeah.
And I'll let you, I did like
three days in a stockbroker's
office, you know, three or four
days at a law firm.
And I did three or four days in
the TV news department of
Channel Seven.
Yeah, wow.
And same thing, like whilst
stockbroking, I instantly
dismissed and went, Nah, I'd
rather stick needles in my eye.
But I did have a fascination for
TV news, etcetera.
So I think if it hadn't been
law, it would have been
journalism, I think.
And I've found over the years
that there are so many
journalists who did law.
We've had people here who you
know who, who worked for us as
paralegals but then went on and
are now ABC journalists,
etcetera.
So, so I see a great overlap
between journalists generally
would have been a lawyer if they
weren't a journalist and vice
versa.
So.
So I think that would be the
other.
Thing No, I, I actually have
witnessed that phenomena and it
is a bit of a yeah, it is
certainly strange.
And I suppose, yeah, I mean, but
even doing this, I suppose with,
with this podcast and this
entire sort of thing, it's sort
of in a way a sort of level of
journalism that I think, yeah,
sort of you enjoy it, I think.
And perhaps I feel with it is
sort of law students last
usually pretty personable people
and they usually like to talk to
people and they usually like to
sort of engage in conversation
and that sort of thing.
And so, you know, it's sort of
similar to a journalist in that
way.
But there's also those
investigative skills and there's
attention to detail.
Yeah, the attention detail, the
ability to go and find the
answers to things in order to be
able to then put questions to
people is a big part of being a
journalist.
So, yeah, yeah.
Last question, what's the
greatest piece of advice you've
ever received?
And perhaps if you could check
who gave it or yeah.
Of course I, I went over and did
some study in The Hague many,
many years ago and I sort of did
this thing.
It was all really intense.
And then when I finished I went
over to London and I met with
the guy who was the head of
Herbert Smith Free Hills back in
the day when they were just
Herbert Smith.
And he was a very experienced
litigator and and whilst he was
very, very smart man, I think I
asked him literally the same
question and he said, I always
surround myself with people
smarter than me.
And I'm, you know, lucky enough
to work with some really, really
good people here.
And having that as an
opportunity.
Like if you, if that is a rule,
make sure that you always was.
I heard something the other day
it said like if, you know, if
you're in a room with, you know,
three idiots, then you're the
4th.
So that, that idea that the
people you hang around with will
have a, a massive impact.
And certainly one of the
motivations for starting this
law firm was to ensure that we
chose the people that we worked
with.
The larger the firm, the less
agency you have over choosing
who you work with.
Whereas pretty much every single
person here has been chosen by,
you know, the small group of
founding partners.
You go, okay, we want to work
with this person.
And that level of both control,
but essentially sort of agency
over your work environment is
incredibly important.
It means that you're not, it's
not hard to come to work because
you don't think, yeah, I'm gonna
have to sit next to that.
Yeah, Yeah.
So yeah, I think surrounding
yourself with really good
people.
I think that's also important, I
think in, in, in not just law,
but in other walks of life as
well.
Just sort of personally and
yeah, having, having really good
people around you is definitely
something that that that will
affect you personally and, and,
and.
Makes the whole journey.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
So Damon, we've ran out of time
for this episode, so I want to
say thank you so much for
joining with me today, and I
wish you all the best for the
rest of the.
Year, thank you for having me.