Record award in estate of John Hemmes

Mmm ... just shows the rich stay rich (or try to) by using every inch of black letter law. Where is the sense of moral obligation?

Mr John enjoyed a six year affair. The creation of a child from that relationship - and it seems there must have been some love from Mr John to the mother for it to last such a period of time - is an issue of responsibility and commitment on behalf of both that child's parents. That is what 2018 ethics should demand!
The mother raised the child with small, grudging child support. The child was entitled to live according to the advantages of his father, as all children such as Mr John's other two children did. This is my modern, 2017-18 view of modern ethical behaviour which I believe would be today's majority view. Why should the child be deprived of opportunity in life, due to his parent's relationship at the time of his birth, when his father had the means to provide him with the benefits of that parentage. Why should that child have been raised in such different circumstances to his half siblings who will have benefited from lifestyle, and schooling opportunities denied to him.
Regardless of the state of the law, or the facts of the case I find that a modern law firm advertising that they help wealthy, advantaged people is repugnant.
Mr John left a home worth $34 million and we all know the family has extensive business interests, and yet there is a feeling here that $1.7 million was TOO much to leave Mr Cameron. Really?
While this article may state what is true and available in the current practice of family law, I turn to Cuffelinks as a newsletter of integrity produced by people of integrity. I would have liked a disclaimer at least from the editor that this article did not represent their ethical framework, and that the success of Mr Cameron's claim should be applauded - or something like that!
How else does societal change happen if this sort of thing goes unchallenged? How very sad! (Managing Editor note: both this comment and the article have been edited, as we often do).

Dear Extremely disappointed parent. Everyone is entitled to legal representation in NSW. We act for executors who want to resist claims by other parties and we also act for people who want to challenge estates. The important principle of freedom of attestation is subject to the right of "eligible people" as defined by the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) to bring a claim for provision out of an estate. Our firm does not make the rules. We are not offering any comment on the ethics of these cases. We do say, however, that they are often very hard cases.

To David and Extremely Disappointed parent...

Well said both of you. Can only agree.
Thank-you.

Agree, although to be fair, lawyers are just reflecting the ethics of their clients.

Thanks. It is interesting. We see both sides in broadly equal numbers. Some parents are disgusted that "an ungrateful" child is likely to get something (there is no log book as every case is different) and sometimes parents are blinded by a new relationship or do nothing in which case a formula applies which no-one likes (intestacy).

EDP ............ on the money (no pun intended)

"Why should the child be deprived of opportunity in life, due to his parent’s relationship at the time of his birth"

Billions of children are deprived of things everyday by virtue of life's circumstances?

"deprived of opportunity" here refers specifically to being deprived of wealth, not just any wealth but wealth well beyond that achieved by let alone simply bestowed up on the average citizen.

By the same logic, entitlement to wealth, power and by extension "opportunity" purely by virtue of bloodline (despite no other connection or relationship) is also a concept that many citizens of 2018 disagree with? The ethics are by no means open and shut here and nor does righteous outrage sway that fact.

As an individual, I would be the first to criticise illegitimate wealth and the exploration of a system apparently built for the many but often exploited by the few. Ethics is by no means a core personality trait of the populace, especially the most elite among us. However, If you fundamentally agree with the premise that legitimately acquired wealth (after fair taxes) should not be confiscated and redistributed by the state in life then it stands to reason the same applies in death. Lawyers deem this important not just for the next ambulance to chase, but for the precedence it sets and perhaps the unintended consequences it produces.