Becoming a King’s Counsel has always been one of Stephanie Grieve’s aspirations. Yet upon hearing she had taken silk, Grieve says she was still “overwhelmed and honoured”.
The new KC got her start as a summer clerk for Russell McVeagh after graduating from Otago University in 1997. Later that year, she moved to Wellington where, after completing Profs, she worked as a junior barrister. Grieve was admitted to the Bar in 1997.
Overseas work experience included working at a French law firm in the defence team in a matter before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; as part of a legal compliance team for an investment bank in London; and as legal counsel for a cable TV company in Amsterdam.
Grieve returned to Dunedin in 2002, joining Anderson Lloyd. She was made partner in 2005 and moved to Christchurch. In 2011, she joined Duncan Cotterill as a partner before moving to the independent Bar in 2018.
Grieve has represented a group of Canterbury homeowners as intervener in the Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services class action. She has been appointed counsel assisting in coronial inquests and was engaged to conduct an independent inquiry into Gloriavale Christian community.
The interview has been edited for clarity.
LawNews: How did you react on hearing you had been appointed as King’s Counsel?
Grieve: It’s a huge privilege. Having been appointed, I’m fully aware of the shoes that I’ve got to fill in terms of the advocates that have come before. You hope to, I suppose, be able to make a contribution. I see it as a role I will be growing into and hopefully setting an example for others and making a contribution to the community and the courts.
LawNews: Should we retain the title of King’s Counsel or revert to “Senior Counsel”?
Grieve: I think we should retain it as there is something in the tradition. It reflects the English system which our system has derived from.
LawNews: Which significant matter that you’ve been involved in over the last three years stands out the most and why?
Grieve: Because I’m involved in quite a variety of work, there have been a number. I’ve been involved in trust and estate litigation, disciplinary matters and earthquake-related class action, coronial matters and an inquiry as well. There are some criminal cases I am involved in. There’s probably not one that stands out for me. I suppose I have sought to undertake a variety of work since I’ve been at the Bar, with the goal of improving my advocacy rather than focusing on a particular area of practice.
I see [advocacy] almost like a methodology. Once you know how to run a case and apply that methodology, you can find out whatever you need to find out about the area of law. That’s not to say you shouldn’t specialise, but it’s almost how you approach the case in terms of understanding the human dynamics first because, as we know, that underlies a lot of litigation – what is the story that has to be told and how am I going to tell it in a way that’s going to be compelling for whoever is making the decision? That’s why I enjoy the variety because you learn something about a different area of the world each time. No case is the same.
LawNews: How can barristers continue to improve access to justice?
Grieve: We’re critical to that issue because we’ve had the privilege of being trained as lawyers, then understanding how the system works and everything that comes with that. I see that as really important to then apply it to assist those who might struggle to make their way through that labyrinthine system or lack the resources to do so. We have to be accessible, we have to be able to understand what it’s like at the coalface for people who don’t have the privileges we’ve had. We play an important role and should be giving back to the communities that have lifted us up.
0 Comments