Kelso Lawyers questioned at the Royal Commission

The Royal Commission had a first look at those who have earned a living from the victims with an initial look into the fee structure and financial agreements of Kelso lawyers.

It is suspected that some law firms were very selective in the clients they would take on board with complex cases and those with high non belief content were 'overlooked' as being troublesome or were played down to turn to reach an easy and quick turn-over low figure settlement.

Part of my concern with Kelso's evidence is that he set himself up as the person who gets to decide how compensation gets apportioned - he stated that was a primary cause in his thinking when setting up his fee structure. He appeared to spend an inordinate amount of time focused on payment structures with the Lawyers association as he appeared to push the boundaries to the max (for the stated aim of benefiting the victims he had).

Of course a review of the payments received by those who have already passed through his process would give us and the Royal Commission a better understanding of that by testing his claim against his figures. I imagine the Royal Commission would happily listen to anyone who has had past financial dealings even if it is only to inform them of the financial agreement - that is where the proof of the pudding is so to speak.

My other concern with Kelso's testimony is to do with his statement that he was acting as a proxy psychologist/counselor to many potential suicides and severely traumatized people and he included that in his costings. This effectively puts him into the position of providing simultaneous trauma and legal counseling. Mr Kelso cannot be both lawyer and psychologist to his clients unless he clearly states this on his web site or in his communications with victims. What was his response to suicidal victim/clients? How did he treat his patients? Did he use psychotherapy, drug therapy, psychology, fMRI? Were any of these services billed? If not. Why not? How were these services shown on his invoices? Did his victims know they were being provided with dual treatment or was Mr Kelso in effect stealing from other victims and claiming to use that to pay for his psychological counseling services - either way someone is getting gypped and this is not the sort of stuff you fuck around with as people kill themselves or can be badly traumatized and are easily led and deceived when badly handled in this way. It appears the very cavalier Mr Kelso may have been prepared to risk the emotional needs of one client to satisfy what he perceived to be the financial needs of another with little regard for the well-being of those he deemed to have been well compensated and thus to be held liable for a financial penalty which Kelso claims to have apportioned to others on some unknown basis.

I feel lucky to be able to say that I have had a few people who have recommended his services and by a matter of coincidence they happened to be people whom I understood were capable of believing anything as a matter of faith and then there were those I spoke to who had a different experience that left too much doubt for me to give him consideration as an empathic and moral person who is also a competent lawyer.

It would do the Royal Commission and survivors well to further question Mr Kelso as to his qualifications, experience and style of personal counseling that he provides to ensure that there has been no breach of trust or conflict of interest in his dealings with his victims and to assure us all that there is no possibility of that in the future.