Law firm, national leader accused of bullying employee

A major law firm has been accused of workplace misconduct by a former employee who alleged she was subjected to bullying, discrimination, and a reduction in her workload.

A lawyer named Piper Alderman, national head of litigation Martin Del Gallego, and director of people and development Dani Guest in a general protections claim lodged in the Federal Court of Australia in March.

According to a decision on an extension application published on Monday (1 December), the lawyer – whose name has been anonymised – alleged adverse action was taken against her because she complained about her supervisors, career progression, leave entitlements, and bullying behaviour by Del Gallego.

Parts of the amended statement of claim included in the decision set out an allegation that class actions, dispute resolution and commercial litigation partner, Kate Sambrook, “frequently imposed unreasonable deadlines” and gave her unclear instructions on the conduct of litigation.

It further alleged Piper Alderman and Guest “did not fairly, adequately and independently investigate” complaints, did not take reasonable steps to ensure a promotion decision was “made objectively and fairly”, and failed to keep her from being subjected to psychological hazards.

As a result of the alleged conduct, the lawyer claimed to have been denied procedural fairness, was discriminated against when compared to other employees, and made to feel like her employment was not secure.

Given the general protections claim was made nine days late, the lawyer sought the Federal Court’s permission to extend the time.

In her submissions, the lawyer claimed she was having mental health issues at the time, had caring responsibilities in Nepal, and had difficulties filing documents through the court’s eLodgment system.

In addition to arguing the lawyer “should have known better”, Piper Alderman advanced several reasons why the extension should be refused, including that not all alleged adverse action could amount to a form of injury in employment or prejudicial altercation of her position.

The firm also claimed it was “inherently more likely” the lawyer was dismissed because she had been made redundant. It referred to a letter by Guest informing the lawyer of the redundancy because she was “no longer to work on the partner’s two primary litigation files”.

Justice Nye Perram said there was “no doubt” the latter would be Piper Alderman’s case at trial, but he could not see how, on an extension of time application, that the merits were so “inherently unrealistic” so as to warrant the deprival of her right to a trial.

Justice Perram accepted the lawyer has sufficiently explained the delay.

The extension was granted and a case management hearing was set down for early next year.

No orders to costs were made but Justice Perram did encourage Piper Alderman to “be more discerning” in its future submissions.

The case: AXR54 v S.M Adams trading as Piper Alderman [2025] FCA 1509.