Interview with: Trevor Withane, Partner

Trevor Withane, Partner at Ironbridge Legal, explains how the firm helps clients resolve complex disputes and restructuring events with clear strategy, decisive execution and confidence in the outcome.

 

What do you see as the main points that differentiate Ironbridge Legal from your competitors?

Ironbridge Legal is a specialist disputes and restructuring firm built for complex, high-stakes matters. Clients come to us when the consequences are material, the facts are moving, and they need an outcome-focused strategy rather than a theoretical analysis.

Three things differentiate us.

First, we are conflict-free by design, which matters in Australia’s concentrated market. It means we can act where others cannot, particularly in disputes involving major institutions, repeat players, or multiple stakeholders.

Second, partner-led execution. We stay close to the detail and the strategy, and we move with pace when timing and leverage are critical.

Third, commercial clarity. We focus early on the real drivers of risk and value, and we give advice that is structured, practical and directly connected to action.

We also invest heavily in written analysis and thought leadership that is tactical and usable, because sophisticated clients and referrers want to see how you think before they pick up the phone.

 

Which practices do you see growing in the next 12 months? What are the drivers behind that?

We expect growth across three connected areas.

First, restructuring and insolvency disputes. Even where insolvencies do not spike, stress events are producing more contested outcomes, including enforcement disputes, contested appointments, investigations, recovery actions and priority fights.

Second, private credit and special situations enforcement. The market is deeper and more sophisticated, and that naturally drives workouts, restructuring negotiations, security enforcement and court processes where counterparties do not cooperate. As capital stacks become more complex, disputes become more technical and more urgent.

Third, regulatory risk and follow-on disputes, including cyber and privacy-related issues. As regulators become more interventionist, boards and executives are seeking advice that is fast, defensible and aligned with contemporaneous decision-making. That also flows through into contractual disputes about incident response, allocation of risk, and performance obligations.

Across all three, the driver is compressed decision windows. Clients want lawyers who can impose order quickly, make good calls early, and execute without delay.

 

What’s the main change you’ve made in the firm that will benefit clients?

The most beneficial change has been sharpening how we scope, stage and run matters so clients get clearer direction earlier and more predictability as a dispute evolves.

We now place more emphasis on the front end of a matter: defining the commercial objective, identifying the true leverage points, mapping the likely pathways, and setting decision gates. That allows clients to make informed choices sooner, including whether to escalate, hold, settle, or apply targeted pressure.

We have also tightened our communication rhythm. Clients want certainty: what is happening, what happens next, what it will cost, and what we need from them. We deliver advice in a way that supports decision-makers reporting to boards, investment committees and stakeholders.

The outcome is practical: faster momentum, fewer surprises, better cost control, and a clearer line of sight to resolution. In high-stakes disputes, that discipline can be the difference between containing a problem early and letting it become value-destructive.

 

Is technology changing the way you interact with your clients, and the services you can provide them?

Yes, particularly around speed, collaboration and the quality of execution.

We use secure digital workflows to share documents, manage versions and keep the right people aligned. That is increasingly important where matters involve multiple stakeholders, time zones, or urgent court timetables.

Internally, technology is helping us work faster and more precisely, including document analysis, chronology building and research. The point is not to replace judgment. It is to remove friction so senior lawyers spend more time on strategy, risk, narrative and the tactical sequencing that wins disputes.

Clients feel the difference in responsiveness and clarity. They get quicker turnaround, tighter written advice, and better visibility of next steps.

We are disciplined about confidentiality and governance. We adopt tools where they measurably improve service and outcomes, and we remain focused on what clients ultimately pay for: clear thinking, decisive execution and defensible results.

 

Can you give us a practical example of how you have helped a client to add value to their business?

A typical example is a client facing a distressed counterparty where delay is eroding leverage and value.

In one such matter, we moved quickly to stabilise the position: we clarified the contractual and security landscape, identified the pressure points, and implemented a strategy that combined targeted enforcement steps with a controlled negotiation pathway. The focus was to protect value, preserve optionality, and avoid an uncontrolled escalation that would consume management time and create reputational and operational risk.

The value to the client was tangible: improved recovery prospects, faster time-to-resolution, and a clearer narrative for internal stakeholders and financiers. Just as importantly, it allowed the business to keep operating while the dispute was being resolved, with risk contained and decisions made on a disciplined timetable.

That is often where the real “value add” sits in disputes and restructuring events: making the right early calls, choosing the right tools, and executing in a way that creates outcomes rather than simply running a process.

 

Are clients looking for stability and strategic direction from their law firms – where do you see the firm in three years’ time?

Clients are looking for stability in the form that matters: calm leadership, clear strategy and consistent execution, particularly when commercial conditions and regulatory settings are shifting.

In three years, we see Ironbridge Legal further strengthening its position as a first-choice firm for complex disputes and restructuring work, while staying true to the model that clients value: specialist focus, conflict-free capability, and partner-led delivery.

Our growth will be deliberate. The objective is not scale for its own sake. It is depth of capability and consistency of service across a wider platform, so clients can rely on us for the most difficult matters and know exactly what they will receive: clear advice, fast momentum, and a plan that is built around the outcome.

We will continue investing in talent, systems and knowledge so we stay sharp as disputes become more complex and timeframes compress. Ultimately, clients want a firm that can bring clarity and certainty in high-stakes moments. That remains our direction.