At what point does one cease to be considered an eminent person?
This is a complex question – and one that becomes even thornier when we consider what eminence means in the law.
The revelation that conservative legal organisation The Samuel Griffith Society has invited former judge Dyson Heydon to speak at its annual conference – starting in Perth tomorrow – has been met with raised eyebrows across the profession. It forces us to confront this question head-on.
In its own words, the Society is “widely renowned for its prestige and the eminence of its speakers”. Heydon, evidently, meets this criterion in the eyes of its conference organisers.
A former Justice of the High Court of Australia, Heydon is in the strictest sense eminent – an academic powerhouse and towering authority on constitutional law, amongst other things. His legal intellect and professional achievements are not in dispute.
But lawyers are burdened – rightly – with an extra condition to any claim of eminence. Eminence in the law is inseparable from character and ethical standing. Good character is not a bonus trait for a lawyer; it is a condition precedent to practice. No one can hold a practising certificate without evidencing that they are fit and proper to do so, which means being able to fulfil the ethical duties they owe to the courts, fellow practitioners and clients.
It is perplexing, then, that the Samuel Griffith Society, in full knowledge of credible findings of sexual harassment against Heydon, still choose to hold him up as an exemplar of legal prestige. There are few in law who are now unfamiliar with the Heydon scandal.
Heydon has denied allegations of sexual harassment. But former Chief Justice Susan Kiefel did not hesitate to accept an independent investigation’s findings: the allegations were credible, the conduct shameful. Through Kiefel’s statement, the High Court offered a sincere apology to the six women whose complaints were borne out, acknowledging how difficult it must have been to come forward. Three have since been awarded compensation.
The allegations against Heydon have created space for other young lawyers to come forward. Just weeks ago, the public learned that allegations have been made against a former Northern Territory Supreme Court judge for sexually harassing a junior lawyer while she worked in his chambers, as his associate. The power imbalance is familiar.
The Law Council of Australia’s position is unambiguous: sexual harassment is professional misconduct. It is not a private matter; it strikes at the heart of the profession’s integrity. Eminence without ethics is not eminence in law.
And yet, here we are – a national conference still parading a man whose name has, for some, become synonymous with judicial controversy.
It is breathtakingly tone-deaf, especially in a profession that is no longer the old boys’ club it once was – or that at least claims not to be. Fifty-six per cent of Australia’s solicitors are now women. What message does it send to them that someone credibly found to have exploited or harassed junior women is still granted the status of revered elder statesmen? That the price of admission to this club is silence and acceptance?
At what point does someone cease to be considered eminent? It must be when they have so obviously betrayed the values that make their supposed professional status possible in the first place. It must be when they fail the test of good character – the same test every junior lawyer must pass just to enter into the very profession that men like Heydon have so thoroughly disappointed.
There is, it seems, still a protected class. A fortress of mates and invitations, no matter the damage done. The good news is that the next generation of lawyers seemingly has no intention of silently accepting it.
Even within the internal ranks of the Samuel Griffith Society there has been dissent over Heydon’s inclusion. Most notably, the Australian National University chapter decided to disband rather than be complicit in the conference organisers’ “obscene” decision to include Heydon in the lineup.
The future of eminence in law will not be defined by supposed statesmen who believe their intellectual brilliance does away with their obligation to behave like decent people. But the battle to get there is clearly far from over.
