In July 2024, former Dentons real estate partner Guy Albeck commenced proceedings in the Federal Court against Dentons and former Australian chair Doug Stipanicev. The case alleges Dentons breached the Fair Work Act by taking adverse action against Albeck after he complained of bullying by another partner.

The case is listed for trial in May 2025 and the allegations have not been tested. But regardless of the outcome, the claim raises questions that every professional services firm managing psychosocial compliance should be asking about how their organisation responds when bullying complaints are made.

What is alleged

At the centre of the dispute is an allegation that Dentons took adverse action against Albeck after he raised complaints of bullying against partner and former board member Kon Tsiakis. Albeck's claim alleges his path to equity partner was cut short as a result of Dentons' conduct around June 2023.

The revised statement of claim also alleges that an internal search was conducted within the firm with the object of finding material to permit Dentons to dismiss Albeck and prevent him from making similar complaints in the future.

Stipanicev stood aside from his roles as Australian chair and Australasian CEO pending an independent investigation. Dentons appointed banking and finance partner Amber Warren to the role of Australian chair and Australasian CEO in September 2024.

Dentons has stated that it takes its workplace obligations seriously and that an independent investigator commenced investigations as soon as Albeck's complaints were received.

These are allegations before the court. They have not been proven.

Why this matters for psychosocial compliance

The case raises a question that sits at the intersection of employment law and psychosocial hazard management: what happens after someone reports bullying?

Under Australian WHS laws, bullying is an identified psychosocial hazard. Every PCBU has a duty to manage the risks associated with it. The risk management obligation does not end when a report is received. It extends to how the organisation responds to the report, how it treats the person who made it, and what actions it takes, or does not take, as a result of its own findings.

The Fair Work Act provides separate protections. Section 340 prohibits adverse action against a person who exercises a workplace right, including the right to make a complaint or inquiry in relation to their employment. A bullying complaint is a workplace right.

When both frameworks are considered together, the organisational response to a bullying complaint is subject to scrutiny from two directions: the WHS framework asks whether the psychosocial hazard was managed, and the Fair Work Act asks whether the person who reported it was penalised for doing so.

The professional services context

This case arises in a professional services firm. That context matters.

Law firms and other professional services firms are facing increasing scrutiny on psychosocial hazards that are inherent to their business model. Excessive workload demands, long working hours, billable hour targets, high-pressure performance cultures, hierarchical structures, and the power dynamics within partnership models all create conditions where psychosocial hazards can compound.

Bullying in partnership structures presents particular challenges. Traditional partnership governance can make it difficult to hold senior partners accountable through the same processes applied to employees. When the person against whom a complaint is made holds significant economic or governance power within the firm, the risk that the complainant faces adverse consequences increases.

These are not theoretical risks. They are identifiable psychosocial hazards with identifiable control measures. The question is whether the firm's internal processes are designed and applied to manage them.

The practical lesson

Whatever the court determines in this case, the underlying compliance question applies to every organisation. When a worker makes a bullying complaint, the organisation's response creates its own psychosocial risk profile.

A process that receives complaints but does not act on findings sends a message to the workforce about whether reporting is safe. A process that substantiates allegations but does not implement controls for the identified hazard leaves the hazard in place. A process that penalises the person who reported creates a new hazard: the suppression of reporting itself.

The WHS framework does not prescribe a specific outcome for any individual complaint. But it does require that identified hazards are controlled. If a complaint identifies bullying as a hazard present in the workplace, the organisation's obligation is to implement controls proportionate to the risk. Documentation of the process, the findings, and the actions taken is what demonstrates compliance.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information on psychosocial compliance in Australian workplaces. It does not constitute legal advice. The Albeck v Dentons proceedings are before the Federal Court and the allegations have not been proven. Organisations should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. Information cited is sourced from Capital Brief, Lawyers Weekly, and public court records as of the date of publication.