Ashurst completed the confidential review for KPMG in August last year, examining accusations that the firm misused sensitive Lendlease data to pitch for new work. The law firm’s report concluded the core allegations from a former employee could not be substantiated and that KPMG partners accused of bullying that employee should be cleared.
Those conclusions were then used internally and externally as proof that KPMG had done nothing wrong. Two Ashurst reports, described to The Australian Financial Review, set out how the review addressed the handling of client information and the treatment of the whistleblower.
According to the reports, Ashurst raised concerns about KPMG’s handling of confidential Lendlease material, even as it dismissed the broader misconduct allegations. The law firm’s findings on bullying were reached without interviewing any staff, including the former employee at the centre of the scandal.
KPMG cited that outcome in communications to regulators, clients and a parliamentary committee to characterise the claims as malicious and driven by personal grievance. Executives then framed the whistleblower as a disgruntled former employee, pointing to Ashurst’s conclusions and a separate review by Allens.
KPMG’s leadership relied on the Ashurst and Allens reviews to shut down questions about whether it inappropriately mined client data to win work, despite significant governance concerns. The approach shaped how regulators and key clients initially viewed the controversy, even as it triggered the exit of the chief executive and other senior figures.
Governance specialists now argue the episode shows how internal legal reviews can be used as both risk management tools and public relations shields. That tension is central to ongoing scrutiny of how professional services firms treat whistleblowers and handle confidential client information.
