Washington Lawyer - October 2019 - 31

MEMBER SPOTLIGHT

TANYA DUNNE
Keeping Connected From Down Under
Interview by John Murph

t's been over a decade since Tanya Dunne
returned to her native Australia, but the antitrust
attorney continues to keep her finger on the
pulse of the Washington, D.C., legal community,
especially with regard to trends and developments
in antitrust law.
Dunne earned her law degree from Georgetown University Law Center, and
she previously worked as an associate in global antitrust at Cleary Gottlieb Steen
& Hamilton LLP in Washington before moving to the firm's Brussels office.
Now based in Melbourne, Dunne is deputy general counsel for the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission. She maintains her connection to
Washington through her membership with the D.C. Bar.
"I may work overseas again, so it's really important for me to keep up to date
with what's going on and maintain my understanding of ethical rules to see
what's changing and what's important to lawyers in Washington, D.C.," says
Dunne, a member of the Bar's Antitrust and Consumer Law Community.
Washington Lawyer sat down with Dunne in her Melbourne office as she talked
about her journey from Australia to the United States and back, her work in
antitrust or competition law matters in Australia, and why it's important for her
to remain a member of the Bar while practicing in her home country.
You're originally from Australia, but your entry into the legal profession
began in Washington, D.C. What brought you to the United States?
My family situation at the time brought me to the United States. I was living
in Maryland and working as a physical education teacher and athletic director
at Georgetown Day Lower/Middle School in Washington D.C.; I was there for
about seven years. Then I decided to do something a bit different career-wise,
so I studied law at Georgetown. Actually, my first year of law school (1997-1998)
was the night program at Catholic University of America Columbus School
of Law while I continued to work at Georgetown Day. After my first year at
Catholic, I switched to Georgetown, where I attended the night program.
I graduated magna cum laude in February 2001.
How did you end up working in antitrust law?
During the last 18 months of law school, I left teaching and worked as a law
clerk at Cleary, one of the top global antitrust law firms. After I graduated,
I worked with Cleary until October 2008 focusing on antitrust and competition
law. During that time, I was seconded to the Brussels office to work on European
competition law matters for a few years. My antitrust training at Cleary was

Photos courtesy of Verity Quinn

top class; I worked with some very talented and experienced antitrust and
competition lawyers.
Why antitrust practice?
I really enjoy doing a deep dive into industries and understanding how they
work, what drives companies, and what drives the market or a particular
industry; it's always fascinated me. I also enjoy dealing directly with business
people.
There are so many areas where companies can run into difficulties under antitrust laws, such as cartel conduct, anticompetitive agreements, and of course
mergers and acquisitions. Sometimes you are advising on one area of antitrust
law, such as a merger, when it becomes clear your client also may have some
issues under other provisions of the relevant legislation. You are always problem
solving, developing options, strategizing on the best approach, negotiating
and advocating particular positions, working with talented business people
and antitrust economists, and at the same time learning about what makes
a particular market, company, or business tick. I really enjoy it.
Tell us about your role as deputy general counsel for the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission.
I focus on advising the commission and investigation teams on mergers and
adjudication matters. I supervise a group of experienced lawyers who assist and
advise the staff teams conducting the investigations. At the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the teams investigating
matters are all practicing lawyers. Here, they're not. Investigation staff may be
trained as lawyers, economists, or any number of [professionals], so the in-house
legal group is quite involved, particularly in complex matters. These include
adjudication matters (authorizations and notifications), as under Australian law
you can notify some conduct or you can obtain authorization for some conduct
that may otherwise contravene the relevant legislation.
Explain cartel conduct in the context of authorization.
I'll give you an example. You might have a bunch of chicken farmers who want
to have a stronger bargaining position when negotiating with a processer. But
they are competitors, and if they come together and agree on a price, then
they're engaging in price fixing, which is a contravention of the cartel laws. So,
they come together, make submissions, and provide evidence on the particular
public benefits, such as transaction cost savings. If the commission is satisfied
that the likely benefits outweigh the likely detriments, then it may authorize the
conduct.
A few years ago, three of the four main banks here in Australia and a couple of
other smaller ones came in for authorization to have a stronger negotiating
position against Apple to introduce Apple Pay, because the argument was that
there wasn't much room for the banks to negotiate terms with Apple. The
OCTOBER 2019

WASHINGTON LAWYER

Washington Lawyer - October 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Washington Lawyer - October 2019