Need Help With Funding Your Family Law Fees - Just Fund Can Help - Click To Learn More

Part 1: Alessia’s thoughts on How Many More Women? a book by Jennifer Robinson and Keio Yoshida

Content warning: This blog contains references to sexual harassment, sexual abuse, rape and domestic violence.

After reading ‘How Many More Women?: How the law silences women - Uncensored, Unredacted, Updated‘, by Jennifer Robinson and Keio Yoshida, legal practitioner Alessia Roccuzzo of Romer Maud shares her thoughts.

In part one of our two-part blog series, she explores the backgrounds of Robinson and Yoshida, how legal suppression and politics impact on the way women are treated in the legal system, and much more. Read her insights about this important book in her first blog instalment.

Who are authors Jennifer Robinson and Keina Yoshida?

Jennifer Robinson is an Australian-born human rights barrister at London’s Doughty Street Chambers.

Her clients range from whistle-blowers to Hollywood actors in high-profile cases. From the outset, Robinson’s practice fused media-law work with strategic human rights litigation. In 2020, Robinson guided actor and witness Amber Heard through Johnny Depp’s defamation suit against The Sun, all while fielding violent death threats herself which continued for years.

A consistent thread in her work is a determination to prevent the powerful from using legal mechanisms unfairly. These mechanisms include secrecy provisions or defamation laws to suppress public debate and free speech; an issue prominent in gender-based abuse cases. Robinson has campaigned to overhaul Australia’s defamation laws, after years of experience advising media outlets during the #MeToo movement, where she regularly encountered chilling legal threats when victim-survivors spoke out.

Robinson understood that legal reform and public education were needed, and this urgency became impossible to ignore after the backlash directed at former political staffer, Brittany Higgins. When Higgins alleged she had been raped inside Parliament House, lawyers for the accused swiftly issued threats of defamation, and later sued media outlets for their reporting.

The prospect of eye-watering damages, lengthy trials and “truth” defences that put victims’ private lives on display can discourage survivors from ever speaking out – and exhaust them when they do.

The pressure Higgins faced to ‘not go public’ (including a media storm, online abuse, court room re-traumatisation and institutional silencing) had a profound impact on her psychological health, warranting prosecution to drop the criminal proceedings against Higgins’ abuser to protect her own mental wellbeing.

At the time of writing, Jennifer Robinson is advocating for defamation law reform to better protect women who speak out about abuse, such as anti-SLAPP laws and a stronger public interest defence. This means that survivors can share their stories without facing legal threats, financial ruin, or emotional distress. Such changes would also make it easier for courts to dismiss meritless claims early, and allow victims to argue that speaking up serves the public interest.

Keio Yoshida and Jennifer Robinson were already well acquainted as colleagues at Doughty Street Chambers. After the two tried to intervene in the UK Supreme Court case Stocker v Stocker, they decided the problem was bigger than a single judgment. Together, they began tracking cases where defamation, privacy, NDAs and other legal tools were being weaponised to gag women in the #MeToo era.

That dossier became the backbone of their brilliant book.

Strategic Legal Suppression: Why this book matters

When reading How Many More Women?, one of the most striking insights is how Robinson and Yoshida expose the “legal silencing” of women through common legal tools; defamation threats, NDAs, and privacy injunctions. These aren’t fringe mechanisms; they’re embedded in everyday legal practice, wielded most often by powerful men to suppress allegations of violence, abuse and harassment.

The opening chapter follows the case of Stocker v Stocker, where Nicola Stocker spent seven years (and two appeals) defending herself against a defamation claim after simply writing on Facebook that her ex-husband had “tried to strangle” her – despite police photographs confirming the attack.

Robinson and Yoshida also track how Sir Philip Green spent an estimated £3 million securing an interim injunction to stop The Telegraph reporting harassment claims by women bound to silence through NDAs. They also track how two Colombian feminist journalists faced civil and criminal proceedings for naming an allegedly abusive film director.

These battles show a chilling pattern: as soon as a woman speaks, she is met with overwhelming legal firepower.

Parliament, Protest and Power

Something that the book highlights is the Australian experience of Brittany Higgins, alongside similar experiences from other women who came forward about traumatic abuse suffered within the very walls of our Parliament.

These accounts are woven into a broader reflection of the events leading up to the nationwide Women’s March4Justice protest in 2021, where Higgins gave a speech which powerfully captured the crux of the issue facing women who disclose abuse. She identified that her story made the front page for one confronting reason; “a painful reminder to women that if it can happen in Parliament House, [it] can truly happen anywhere.”

The authors go on to document the personal cost these women paid after coming forward (shattered mental health, the loss of dream careers), while the alleged perpetrators often remained in positions of power, including cabinet roles. They draw a sharp contrast with male politicians who have been forced to resign or faced inquiries regarding their capacity for far lesser misconduct. Robinson and Yoshida highlight the double standard where powerful men are more often held accountable for mishandling funds than they are for sexual violence, or litigation abuse.

Final Thoughts

Thank you for reading about some of the important topics discussed in this book. In the next part of our blog series on How Many More Women?, Aleesia unpacks key figures working to create meaningful change, and the ways in which the media and others in power have responded to them. She also explores the retraumatisation that victims currently risk when entering the legal system, and why this book is so crucial for legal professionals, journalists and policymakers.

At Romer Maud Family Lawyers, we take the safety, protection and human rights of women very seriously. If the subject matter in this blog has brought up any issues for you, please remember that support is available. Here are some Australian-based organisations below you can connect with:

Lifeline: 13 11 14

1800 Respect

Rainbow Door: 1800 729 367

Beyond Blue: 1300 22 4636

About The Author - Alessia Roccuzzo

Alessia is an experienced and fastidious legal professional. She worked with the Romer Maud team as our subpoena clerk for three years, and later completed her Practical Lawyer Training (PLT) with us too. We are so grateful to her for all of the hard work, passion, and care she has given to our firm.

*This post is an overview only and should not be considered as legal advice. If there are any matters that you would like us to advise you on, then please contact us.

Book Your Free Appointment

Free, no-obligation 15-minute appointment with an experienced family lawyer.

      Excellent rating  
 Based on 79 reviews 
    
  
 
 
      Disappointing experience, especially because when choosing a lawyer I read so many positive reviews for this company.
From the beginning, I felt unsupported and as though my matter was not genuinely being progressed. Despite paying for legal fees when necessary, I saw little to no meaningful progress and ultimately felt that my matter went nowhere.

The other party was repeatedly able to not respond, and I felt there were limited options or consequences available to move things forward, even in light of previous court arrangements.
I understand that solicitors cannot control the other party or guarantee an outcome. However, I expected clear communication, genuine support and reasonable efforts to progress my matter, particularly when ongoing concerns and behaviours were being raised. Instead, I was left feeling unheard, frustrated and out of pocket, with no meaningful change to the parenting arrangements and continuing difficulties around communication and parenting responsibilities.

I also questioned whether my age affected my experience, although I cannot say that this was the case. I simply hope that being a younger client did not influence the level of attention or support I received, as I was still a paying customer seeking legal assistance.

Alison and Seren both seemed lovely on a personal level, but unfortunately I was left feeling that my matter was not a priority. Overall, I unfortunately would not choose to use this firm again.
I will add though, Seren understood my circumstances and worked with me to ensure I could afford each step of the process, it’s just unfortunate nothing more could be achieved with the obvious act of neglect from the other party.
     
   Tameka Bickford 
 27 September 2026
 
 
 
 
    Would highly recommend using there services.
     
   Amanda Britton 
 1 September 2026
 
 
 
 
    Very Helpful with lots of information regarding our requirements. Also very professional in the manner they conducted the teams meeting.
     
   Jimmy Lewis 
 30 July 2026
 
 
 
 
    Best lawyers in Melbourne thank you Durra
     
   raf kiswani 
 1 July 2026
 
 
 
 
    Highly recommend Romer Maud for their legal expertise in family law and professionalism, but equally their care and support throughout the process - in particular Emina Hiddick who was an absolute rock and guiding light throughout, always patient, responsive and generous with her time, knowledge of the legal system and advice. I felt confident and fortunate to have Emina representing me and helping me navigate a challenging time.
     
   Sara Newman 
 25 May 2026
 
 
 
 
    I had such wonderful support through one of the most difficult times of my life from Emina at Romero Maud Family Lawyers. She handled my case with kindness and respect and was able to guide me whilst also allowing my to maintain my core goals and outcomes. Would highly highly recommend.
     
   Belinda Dixon 
 29 April 2026
 
 
 
 
    Seren from Romer Maud was absolutely amazing. She was professional, supportive, and genuinely cared about getting the best outcome for me and my daughter.

She made a stressful process much easier and kept everything clear and straightforward. I’m so grateful for her help and highly recommend her to anyone needing a family lawyer.

Thank you so much Seren and the team at Romer Maud, we couldn't of done it without you.
     
   Glenn 
 29 April 2026
 
 
 
 
    Communication was not effective I was confused about my situation and after taking their first appointment I didn’t felt like I have been heard or suggested what would be my next steps
     
   Sravya Raavi 
 29 April 2026
 
 
 
 
    In response to the comment from Romer Maud below - I use a pseudonym online, the reason for which should be plainly obvious especially to you given what you’ve been privy to of my situation. The fact that you cannot recall a 22 month long separation which you were part of says it all really. I have included more than enough specific details that the case should be obvious to you. I was not your client, my previous partner was. However we were both massively negatively impacted on every level by your ineptitude, highlighted here by the very fact you’ve no recollection even of the case, that only concluded in April of this year.

My original review post:
At every point where an agreement should have been reached, this firm failed to effectively guide their client toward resolution. As a result, the separation was unnecessarily prolonged.

This was not over a complex or high-value asset pool. It was modest, and the limitations were clear, if not from their client, then certainly from the accurate information repeatedly provided by my lawyer and barrister.

Their approach cost both their client and myself over $50,000 each in unnecessary legal fees.

They provided incorrect advice regarding financial separation and were unable to manage their client’s expectations. At mediation, my barrister (with 20+ years’ experience) had to explain, in front of one of this firm partners and their junior barrister, what a court would consider fair and reasonable.

Even after eight hours of negotiation that day (which they only attended because their client failed to appear), no agreement was reached.

Ultimately, their client accepted an offer I had made two years earlier, before lawyers were involved, based on my own accurate research. By that point, we had spent over $50,000 each and endured 22 months of entirely avoidable litigation.

Our combined legal fees equated to roughly one-fifth of the asset pool, with this firm’s fees representing more than one-third of their client’s share. The cost of reaching agreement was excessive.

For nearly two years, they allowed their client to believe they were entitled to far more than a court would award. We came close to a final trial, a costly and stressful outcome we narrowly avoided.

Their conduct prolonged financial limbo and, in my view, enabled ongoing financial abuse. The court was aware of this.

It is unclear whether this reflects inexperience, an inability to manage difficult clients, or prioritisation of fees over resolution. Regardless, the outcome was the same: delay, cost and psychological distress.

If this firm represents you or your ex, expect prolonged timelines, significant legal costs, and repeated inaccuracies in correspondence and financials. I routinely had to pay my lawyer to correct their errors.

They operated on a deferred payment model, taking fees from their client’s settlement. This likely reduced their client’s awareness of escalating costs. In contrast, I paid regularly, making the financial impact of litigation immediate.

Following mediation, progress improved slightly (though settlement still took another five months), likely once the financial reality became clear they would not be paid appropriately for a final trial out of their clients realistic share of the asset pool.

Communication was consistently delayed, court ordered deadlines were never respected and responses were often almost always incomplete or incorrect.

Even post-settlement, finalisation of court-ordered matters was delayed by SIX months. I had to re-engage my lawyer just to obtain responses and ultimately complete required work myself to ensure compliance after this firm sent confirmation that proved their client lodged a highly questionable tax return, attempting to avoid paying CGT entirely, which was outside what was legally required.

I strongly recommend avoiding this firm. If they are acting for your ex, be prepared for an unnecessarily prolonged and costly process.
     
   Lucky Leonard 
 28 April 2026
 
 
 
 
    Very professional and lovely to speak to, gave me confidence to move forward knowing they will support me all the way
     
   Kris Balfour 
 31 March 2026