Ian Roberts was called to the bar in 1996 and now has had the pleasure of being heavily involved in the creation of a new set of chambers: Greenway Chambers. He states that: “[The Chambers] has focused on delivering the highest standard of legal services through recruitment and development of barristers who are leaders in their respective fields.” Lawyer Monthly discusses with Ian more about how he progressed throughout the years, the lessons he has learnt and his predictions for the Australian legal sector.
You have been ‘raising the bar’ since 96, what would you say has been your biggest case during that time?
What is the “biggest” will mean different things to different people. To lawyers biggest often means the most legally significant, which is usually the most satisfying.
Some time ago I appeared for the defendant in Newcastle Port Corporation v Pevitt (2003) 58 NSWLR 548. It was a case that concerned a fairly narrow question about whether the limitation fund constituted pursuant to the Limitation Convention 1976 included the costs of the action in which the limitation of liability was relied upon following a collision between the pilot vessel, the John Hunter and a fishing boat. The issue was interesting because, surprisingly, it had not been dealt with in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world, as far as we could determine. It was important in that case because, as the amount of the fund was determined by the tonnage of the (relatively small) John Hunter, if the costs were included in the fund, there would have been little if any money left in the fund for the severely injured plaintiffs after the costs were paid.
Ultimately, the Judge found that the fund excluded the costs of the litigation for the reasons I argued at trial. Unbeknownst to us at the time, a very similar case was being dealt with in the UK and, although neither judge knew of the other case, each reached the same conclusion for consistent reasons.
What’s the most surprising lesson you impart with your peers?
The importance of being organised. This comes from early and thorough preparation, being on top of the chronology as well as identifying and understanding the real issues. There is a sense of control that comes with a properly prepared case.
What steps have you taken to improve the benchmark of legal services throughout the years of practice?
Over the last 20 years since I began at the NSW Bar, the standard of advocacy has steadily improved and continues to do so. When my career began, advocacy was rarely, if at all, taught. The attitude tended to be that advocates were born and not made, and they were left to their own natural skill, wit and ability. Sometimes that was enough, but more often than not it was insufficient. Advocacy is now taught throughout the Australian jurisdictions at both entry stage of practice at the Bar as well as throughout the careers of all advocates. The shift in attitude from advocates having to rely on a natural ability, to treating it as a skill that can be learned and improved on, has without doubt increased in the standard of advocacy; I have always had an interest and an involvement in the ongoing education of barristers and aspiring lawyers through various programs from High School mock trial competitions, university moots and the NSW Bar Association’s readers’ course.
What current challenges do you see the legal profession in Australia facing in five years’ time?
The cost of litigation continues to outpace the cost of many other professional services. If that trend continues the profession will be left with very few potential clients with the ability to fund complex litigation. The profession needs to develop the ability to offer more for less. One way of responding to the shifting legal market is to make better use of technology. Lawyers have traditionally been slow to pick up technology and when they do it has been often using technology for technology’s sake. However, the legal profession is currently undergoing a quantum shift in the way that legal services can be delivered. It is important to look how technology and innovation can be used to achieve better outcomes for clients.
Most people would say let’s look at the solution rather than what or who caused the problem, but you find particular importance of identifying why a particular legal problem exists; can you explain why?
The common-law system of precedent is based on principles derived from earlier decisions; often those decisions are very old. I have always had an interest in history and in addition to looking at the legal principles that emerge from the authorities, I am also interested in social, economic and political circumstances that drove the decisions. The social attitudes towards issues like labour supply, gender, wealth, property ownership, death, indigenous rights and so many others have changed substantially during the development of the common law and, in many cases, in the last 50 or 100 years. Those attitudes often explain why a court has leaned in a particular way in dealing with the issues it has had to determine. Understanding that history often leads to a better understanding of the significance of decision.
