Law Society of NSW unlawfully prevents the legitimate renewal of Ms Odtojan and Mr Bryl's practising certificates without lawful process and deleted their solicitors records in the LS Registry. An alleged targeted discriminatory hate crime in progress by the Law Society of NSW

UPDATE | Freund v Attorney General of NSW -Court of Appeal Judgment, 30 October 2026 PUBLIC INTEREST | JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY | PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS | RULE OF LAW The NSW Court of Appeal quashed the Judicial Commission's referral decision on the narrow ground of apprehended bias. However, the Attorney-General's complaint has not been dismissed and has been remitted to the Judicial Commission for reconsideration according to law.

Sharon Freund v Attorney General of NSW & Judicial Commission - NSW Court of Appeal Hearing. Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund's dispute with Chief Judge Michael Allen led to her lodging a bullying complaint against him with the NSW Judicial Commission. She subsequently commenced judicial review proceedings against the NSW Attorney General & the Judicial Commission, challenging two decisions: the dismissal of her bullying complaint and the referral of concerns regarding her ow

“Perverting the Course of Justice and Lying”: NSW Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund's Declaration in Her Complaint Against Chief Judge Michael Allen - Two Conflicting Judicial Accounts NSW Local Court judicial feud: Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund and Chief Judge Michael Allen. Freund commenced judicial review proceedings in the NSW Court of Appeal, challenging two Judicial Commission decisions.

NSW Local Court Deputy Chief Judge Sharon Freund challenges two Judicial Commission decisions in proceedings against the NSW Attorney-General and the Judicial Commission. The decisions concern the dismissal of her complaint against Chief Judge Michael Allen and the subsequent referral of concerns about her own conduct to the Commission's Conduct Division. These proceedings concern the dismissal of Freund's complaint against Chief Judge Michael Allen and, following the NSW Att

NSW Attorney General Michael Daley undermining parliamentary findings against the NSW DPP as a "stitch up", "unsupported by evidence"and "farcical" while his office introduced prior misconduct allegations against two NSW lawyers where no findings existed.

The Most Honest Test Anyone can Apply "Take the process applied to two lawyers. Turn it around. Apply it to the people who applied it. Ask: would that be acceptable? This is the mirror test, and the reflection is revealing. There is a test that can cut through every legal argument, every procedural justification, and every institutional defence faster than any case authority. It is called the mirror test.

One Year On. No Findings. No Adjudication. Just Allegations, and a Judgment That Made It Precedent for Every Australian Lawyer. Marie Odtojan and Artem Bryl - Odtojan Bryl Lawyers. Two lawyers. A Law Firm. No findings. No proven case of any breaches under the law. No adjudication. Still speaking. Still fighting for the rule of law and democracy.

When Language, Law, and Identity Collide: The Federal Court decision in Tickle v Giggle Case, Statutory Definitions, Government Intervention, and the Debate Over Women’s Spaces. On 15 May 2026, the Federal Court made its landmark decision in the case of Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960 which has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed legal disputes in recent Australian history.

When a NSW Supreme Court Judge Is Sued, It Highlights a Fundamental Principle: No One Is Above the Law.