The Federal Court defamation case against Michael West Media has been dropped, but so has the regulator’s investigation into the lawyers’ conduct. Michael West reports on a fee-fest.
Our latest trial is over. The defamation case against us has been dropped. Yet the investigation into the conduct of the lawyers by the ACT Law Society has also been dropped. They had been investigating following complaints by us about conflicts of interest and unethical conduct by a Canberra law firm.
Our lawyers from XD Law have described the result early settlement (confidential) as “stunning”. From a lawyer’s perspective, it is. The case would have dragged on as costs ramped relentlessly higher had we not called their bluff and tried to push the matter into court as soon as possible. We are thankful to Mark Davis, Sharangan Maheswaran and Jack Vaughan for their good work.
But this was a case which should never have happened in the first place, full of conflicts of interest and questionable conduct as it was.
Vic Sundar is yet to respond.
In the meantime, five months and $40k in legal costs since the action began, this story is an omen for all publishers that the law, or perhaps better put, the legal business, is a predatory and unregulated wasteland of fee-guzzlers. It’s all legal, however, all now blessed by the regulators, by the ‘profession’ itself.
Nothing to see here.
“We note your previous complaints against Ms Taylor and Ms Noble were considered by the Professional Standards Committee at its meeting on 27 March 2025 and were dismissed … on the face of it, it does not appear that Ms Taylor and Ms Noble have placed themselves in a position of conflict,” we were told in an email with no further explanation.
The two solicitors had been pursuing me and other associates for five years. And despite what we say are clear conflicts of interest, and questionable conduct, the regulators have failed to explain adequately why they dismissed the complaints.
Acceptable or anything-goes?
A number of important professional and public interest issues arise as a result of the findings. In dismissing the complaints, the ACT Law Society would appear to take the view that it is acceptable conduct by its members to drag a citizen straight into Court for defamation – ignoring all efforts made in good faith by the citizen to resolve the concerns of their client.
One of MWM’s offers to MV Law
Further, it would appear that they find it is acceptable conduct for its members to fail to disclose conflicts of interest, that it is acceptable conduct to be both a witness in a case as well as acting as solicitor in the same proceedings.
Also that it is acceptable conduct for a barrister acting with solicitors at a mediation to demand money by threatening to take somebody’s home in satisfaction of legal fees (even though it is their client who is supposed to pay their fees).
Rather than adhering to convention, indeed the legal obligation of discussing a claim before suing – of reacting to efforts to resolve the matter without litigation (we had offered generously to address their concerns) but the two solicitors from Canberra law firm MV Law instead had us personally served with a writ at home.
No emails returned, no telephone calls returned either; the solicitors Alisa Taylor and Courtney Noble simply brushed away all our efforts to address the concerns of their client.
Instead, preferring to drag us directly into Court, the Federal Court of Australia.
And instead of being buried, the story went national, exposing a cover-up on Parliament Hill, with Senate Questions on Notice still to be answered as to why people in government can be engaged in suing citizens with the cognisance of bureaucratic chiefs and even at a cost to the Government.
David Shoebridge grills Parliament Services on China tweeter
As the ACT Law Society investigation has been dismissed, in the eyes of legal regulators MV Law has acted appropriately. A cynic might claim that the legal regulators in Australia are pathologically incapable of regulating their ‘profession’.
Perhaps not, perhaps what the regulators have demonstrated is that this *is* the profession. Business as usual. Watch out if you post anything on socials because, if you do they can drag you into court and sue you for defamation even if you take the post down.
Thanks again
It is thanks to our distribution that we were able to fund a defence by raising $48k in 24 hours in a crowd-funding. (Chuffed supporters have been advised earlier about the outcome and in greater detail as they were the effective litigation funders).
Again, we are humbled and immensely thankful at this support in the community, without which the case would have dragged on.
Nonetheless, we were still damaged financially by the claim, forced to divert resources from journalism, and forced to junk media projects, just to meet the demands of the ambulance chasers.
As they say, it’s only the lawyers who win.
The broader point here is that it is the business model of lawyers to create work for themselves. Where they can, they will. And the regulator’s decision in this instance is not good for free speech. The matters complained of were true, thoroughly researched and in the public interest.
In a government policy sense, the shoddy defamation laws and regulation of lawyers in this country is unfair because the corporate media, in contrast to social and independent media, is subsidised by government ads and the Media Bargaining Code.
In effect, this props up fossil media as the journalists in the mainstream have a balance sheet behind them and they are indemnified by their large corporations. The playing field is not level at all.
One final observation. The case was being heard by Justice Nicholas Owens of the Federal Court. We were “strongly advised” by Justice Owens to seek legal representation. The good thing about litigation being so expensive is that it deters an avalanche of claims choking the court system. The bad thing is that justice is out of reach for people of ordinary means.
It is a place for wealthy people and corporations.
The judges don’t want people representing themselves in court, because this would make it far cheaper, but it would also invite a flood of litigation, especially if Joe Blow managed to get a win and encourage the other hoi polloi to have a crack. So realistically, Joe Blow is dragged into a fee-fest, and in the case of this Joe Blow, with no choice in the matter.
Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker.