Allegations Weaponised to Strip Livelihoods: An Erosion of the Rule of Law
- 5 days ago
- 15 min read
Chronology
1. What This Public Disclosure is About
This article concerns what we allege is the weaponisation of unresolved allegations to strip two lawyers of their livelihood, practising rights, and professional standing despite there being:
* no findings of misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct;
* no NCAT proceedings;
* no suspension;
* no tribunal determination;
* and no adjudicated findings of wrongdoing by any court or tribunal.
It concerns what we allege was a gross miscarriage of justice through the exercise of administrative statutory powers in a manner that became unchecked and effectively unfettered.
It further concerns a judicial review judgment of Justice Griffiths which, in our view, failed to properly address the core legality issues actually before the Supreme Court in judicial review proceedings, including:
* whether the Legal Profession Uniform Law was lawfully applied;
* whether Chapter 5 disciplinary processes were unlawfully bypassed;
* whether procedural fairness was denied;
* whether unresolved allegations could lawfully be materially relied upon to impose devastating professional consequences without proper adjudication;
* and whether Chapter 3 fitness powers can lawfully operate as a standalone process detached from the Chapter 5 disciplinary framework established by Parliament.
Instead of addressing those legality issues, the judgment repeatedly recited allegations, commentary, and adverse narratives while omitting or failing to materially engage with critical legislative provisions, evidence, and procedural concerns raised by the applicants.
It could be seen, in effect, as a reproduction of the respondents’ position without the level of legal scrutiny and analysis ordinarily expected in supervisory judicial review proceedings commenced under s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 and Part 59 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
Importantly, we say the judgment effectively renders the Chapter 5 disciplinary framework optional by treating Chapter 3 “fitness” powers as a standalone discretionary process capable of materially relying upon unresolved allegations without first proceeding through the investigative and adjudicative safeguards established under Chapter 5 and if pursued, to be determined by NCAT in a two stage hearing.
We further say this discretionary theory, together with the material reliance placed upon the Legal Services Commissioner’s letter handed up on the day of hearing in Ms Odtojan’s matter, and reliance upon s 97 of the Uniform Law, only crystallised within the judgments themselves in Odtojan and Bryl. It was not clearly articulated in submissions, evidence, or properly ventilated during the judicial review hearing.
What also emerged in the judgments was a reformulation of the twelve grounds and the issue before the Court into whether the Law Society was entitled to make misconduct findings under the Chapter 3 fitness process rather than proceeding under Chapter 5.
But that was never the issue raised by the applicants.
Because there were no misconduct findings at all.
We say this approach is contrary to the structure and operation of the Legal Profession Uniform Law, including s 262, which was expressly referred to and relied upon during the judicial review hearing but was ultimately omitted from the judgment itself.
That omission is significant because Chapter 5 exists precisely to provide the investigative, procedural, and adjudicative safeguards required where allegations concerning conduct are raised against legal practitioners.
Yet the practical effect of the reasoning, we say, is that unresolved allegations can now be materially relied upon under Chapter 3 fitness assessments without the protections, investigations, hearings, and independent determinations ordinarily required under the disciplinary framework established by Parliament.
The broader public concern is profound.
Because if unresolved allegations can be materially relied upon to deprive legal practitioners of their livelihood, practising rights, reputation, and professional standing without adjudication, then the procedural safeguards embedded within the Uniform Law become illusory.
What is permitted against one today may become normalised against many tomorrow.
And that, we say, is precisely the danger now confronting the legal profession in New South Wales.
2. Allegations Are Not Facts
It is dangerous when allegations are treated as if they are findings or established facts, especially when a person’s livelihood, reputation, liberty, and future are at stake.
Every day, we see reports in the news where allegations are made against a person. Those allegations are then placed before a court, where due process begins. Evidence is tested. Allegations are assessed. A hearing occurs. Only if wrongdoing is established can a court or tribunal determine what orders should follow.
That is fundamental to the rule of law and the administration of justice, whether in a criminal, civil, or disciplinary context.
Without that process, society cannot function. Allegations alone could be used to inflict injustice, strip rights, destroy livelihoods, and deprive people of liberty.
An allegation is not a finding.
A referral is not a finding.
Judicial commentary is not a finding.
A statement of claim is not evidence of guilt. Pleadings are designed to contain allegations of fact requiring judicial determination through a final hearing. Until such determination occurs, they remain unresolved allegations.
Concerns or suspicions, no matter how strongly worded, are not established facts unless they are lawfully investigated, tested, and determined through a proper lawful process, ordinarily by a court or tribunal.
That principle is not controversial.
It is foundational to the rule of law.
Yet in our case, adverse outcomes and records were made by the Law Society of NSW, its Council, and the NSW Legal Services Commissioner based on allegations and referrals which had no finality, no adjudication, and no proper determination.
Those outcomes determinatively affected our livelihood and professional standing, without any final determination, without any NCAT hearing, and without the Chapter 5 processes of assessment, investigation, and adjudication ordinarily associated with dealing with allegations under the Legal Profession Uniform Law.
3. No Proven Case Against Us
We all know the fundamental principle of the rule of law: a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
But in our case, we were treated as though misconduct had already been established when no such findings existed. We were effectively treated as guilty without any due process, lawful investigation, or final determination of the allegations relied upon against us.
The very first correspondence from Ms Valerie Griswold in July 2024 asserted as fact that misconduct existed and, based on that, adverse actions were already taken affecting our practising rights, all without notice to us and without us ever being heard.
Then, without notice or due process, our solicitor and practice data were altered. Our names and professional records effectively disappeared from the public solicitor registry, and our memberships no longer appeared to exist despite payments having been made and prior correspondence confirming that I held membership services.
The regulators were fully aware that our solicitor data and membership status had been altered, yet we were never notified.
So the pattern continued:
No notice.
No hearing.
No due process.
You can see the pattern: adverse actions were taken against our professional status, practising rights, and public data because regulatory officers had the power and access to do so.
The narrative later shifted.
After the NSW Attorney General was formally notified of what we alleged were unlawful acts, a new phrase began appearing: “alleged prior misconduct.”
But that itself was not a fact.
There were no findings of misconduct.
To publicly assert “prior misconduct” requires established findings or proven facts. Otherwise, it becomes an unsubstantiated allegation repeated through positions of authority.
Throughout this process, unparticularised and unsupported allegations were repeated while our repeated requests for particulars, clarification, and engagement were ignored.
We lost our livelihood because of allegations made by the very people who never lawfully proved them.
That is not what due process looks like.
That is not how the rule of law is supposed to operate in a democratic society.
Yet that is precisely what we allege occurred to us through the actions of the Law Society of NSW and associated regulatory bodies.
With adverse commentary being repeated in judgments and media reporting, including by Lawyers Weekly, the public is being misled about the real legal issue.
The question that must be asked is simple:
What were the breaches?
What was the contravention?
What were the findings of wrongdoing?
The answer is equally simple:
There were none.
There was no proven case of wrongdoing against either of us by any court or tribunal.
There were no findings of professional misconduct against us.
There were no findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct against us.
There was no suspension.
There was no tribunal determination.
There was no adjudication proving any wrongdoing against us.
There was nothing proven against us.
The Law Society of NSW and the Legal Services Commissioner did not prove wrongdoing against us. Instead, allegations were raised, Chapter 5 disciplinary processes were bypassed, and the matter was dealt with through the practising certificate renewal and “fitness” process under Chapter 3 using s 45 powers.
In effect, we were simply told we were not fit and proper persons to practise law.
That was the process.
A process we say is not supported by the Uniform Law where unresolved allegations are materially relied upon to impose such devastating consequences.
That is the reality.
But that reality is being buried beneath character attacks, adverse commentary, and personal aspersions by regulators, media, and the judicial review judgment itself.
When there is no proven case, the attack shifts to character.
What occurred instead was that allegations, referrals, commentary, and unresolved matters were repeatedly recited and elevated as though they carried the same legal weight as established findings of fact.
The Chapter 5 disciplinary framework exists for a reason. It is the due process pathway established by Parliament to address allegations concerning conduct under the Uniform Law, including s 262. It contains investigative mechanisms, procedural safeguards, assessment processes, and adjudicative pathways specifically designed to determine allegations before serious professional consequences are imposed.
That framework was bypassed.
And that is precisely why we continue to speak up.
4. How NSW Regulators Used Referrals to Target Our Livelihood
Ultimately, we lost our livelihood because we accessed the courts.
I sought to appeal an interlocutory decision arising from a District Court notice of motion. I exercised my legal rights. I sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court Court of Appeal.
This was my civil case. Mr Bryl sought leave to act as my advocate for the purposes of that leave hearing.
What should have been a legal question, whether there was an arguable case warranting appellate consideration, instead became a series of personal attacks, commentary, and adverse narratives.
The legal issue was derailed. The focus shifted to us and our conduct, despite that not being the issue before the court. My application concerned alleged errors in the District Court decision I wished to appeal.
Rather than addressing the substance of the appeal issues, the proceedings increasingly focused upon our character, credibility, conduct, and professionalism.
If judges considered that ethical or disciplinary matters arose, the lawful avenue was referral to the Legal Services Commissioner. But any allegations of wrongdoing still required proper process, investigation, assessment, and lawful determination.
Matters concerning credibility, factual disputes, integrity, and wrongdoing ordinarily require final adjudication through a lawful hearing process.
Yet commentary appeared in judgments on matters that were never properly ventilated before the court.
Mr Bryl advocated for me during proceedings by referring to legislation, pleadings, evidence, and my statement of claim. Yet no proper final hearing ever occurred regarding the allegations contained within those pleadings.
The very matters raised in my statement of claim, unresolved allegations requiring judicial determination, were taken outside the proper adjudicative process and weaponised against us through referrals to legal regulators.
5. The Weaponisation of Unresolved Allegations
The NSW legal regulators, including the Law Society of NSW and the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, received referrals and allegations.
But instead of addressing those matters through the proper lawful framework designed for investigating and determining conduct allegations, unresolved allegations were listed, repeated, and materially relied upon to deprive us of our livelihood and professional standing.
What is perhaps most disturbing is that this pattern did not stop at the regulatory level.
It continued through commentary, public narrative, and repeated character aspersions.
There is a reason propaganda throughout history has relied upon repetition. As a saying often attributed to Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, states: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.”
That quote is remembered not because it is admirable, but because it reflects a dangerous reality about how repetition shapes public perception.
Among psychologists, this concept is closely associated with what is known as the “illusion of truth” effect, the phenomenon where repetition can cause statements to feel more believable regardless of whether they are actually true.
As psychologist Tom Stafford observed:
“Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not.”
Understanding this effect matters, particularly in systems that rely heavily upon written records, authority, and public trust.
That is precisely why judicial officers, regulators, and media organisations carry such immense ethical responsibility.
Repeated adverse commentary, especially by those perceived to hold authority and entrusted by the public to act honestly and with integrity, can fundamentally shape how the public perceives a person, regardless of whether any allegations were ever proven.
What has occurred in our case is a consistent pattern of repeated narratives attacking credibility, professionalism, character, and even our marital relationship, while the actual legal issues remain largely ignored.
Nothing appears protected from commentary.
Not our reputations.
Not our integrity.
Not even our relationship.
And yet the one thing consistently absent from these narratives is any identification of proven wrongdoing.
Because there were no findings.
There were no established breaches.
There was no adjudication.
6. The Role of Media and Narrative
Repeated articles published by Lawyers Weekly have focused heavily on personal aspersions, photographs, marital status, and ridicule while failing to properly communicate the seriousness of the legal issues raised in the proceedings.
Readers should ask themselves:
Why is there such emphasis on personalities, relationships, and commentary, yet so little focus on the legality of the process itself?
Why are we repeatedly ridiculed for accessing the courts and exercising legal rights?
Why are unresolved allegations repeated while the absence of findings is not made equally clear?
On reading the Lawyers Weekly articles, the language appears emotive and ridiculing. It reads more like a gossip column than serious legal industry reporting.
There is no meaningful critical analysis of what happened after earlier reports of referrals. Were there findings of misconduct? Were there findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct? Were there investigations? Were there tribunal determinations?
No.
Instead, a new narrative appears: married lawyers trying to retrieve their practising certificates.
Our individual rights, separate proceedings, and separate applications to challenge administrative exercises of power affecting our livelihood were reduced to ridicule and mockery, framed through our relationship status rather than the legal issues.
No serious engagement with the rule of law.
No serious engagement with the consequences of the decisions.
No serious questioning of the process.
7. The Danger of Judicial Commentary
The danger of judicial commentary in these circumstances cannot be understated.
Judges carry immense authority. Their words carry enormous weight. Judicial criticism and commentary can have devastating consequences upon a person’s reputation, livelihood, and future.
That is precisely why courts must exercise caution, restraint, fairness, and precision when making adverse observations about parties before them.
Especially where there has been no final adjudication.
Where a judgment repeats allegations or adverse commentary without clearly stating that there were no findings, no adjudication, and no proven wrongdoing, the public may naturally assume that findings exist.
Judges hold institutional authority.
The public trusts judicial records.
That is why accuracy, framing, omissions, and language matter so significantly.
8. The Judicial Review Judgment Did Not Address Legality
The judicial review proceedings were supposed to determine legality, the legality of the exercise of administrative statutory power, the legality of the process undertaken, the jurisdictional basis for the decisions, and whether procedural fairness and lawful authority existed.
Instead, the core issues of legality were not addressed.
Material legislative provisions central to our case, including s 262, were omitted or not properly engaged with. There was no proper analysis of the statutory criteria, including Rule 13, and how those criteria were lawfully relied upon or established.
Material evidence raised by the applicants was not meaningfully scrutinised or reflected. Important facts, including that there were no misconduct findings, no disciplinary determinations, and no completed Chapter 5 process, were not clearly articulated.
One of the most concerning aspects of the judgment is that it framed the issue as though there had been misconduct findings and the question was merely whether those findings could be addressed under Chapter 3 rather than Chapter 5.
But there were no misconduct findings at all.
That framing distorts the facts.
Readers of the judgment may naturally assume that if a judge records an issue concerning entitlement to make misconduct findings, then such findings must exist.
They did not.
The issue before the court was legality:
Could unresolved allegations lawfully be materially relied upon to reach conclusions carrying devastating professional consequences without the proper statutory process of assessment, investigation, and determination required by Parliament?
Instead of directly addressing the legality of bypassing the Chapter 5 disciplinary framework, the judgment repeatedly recited allegations and commentary while omitting or failing to materially engage with key legislative provisions, evidence, and procedural concerns raised by the applicants.
But repetition does not create truth.
Recitation is not adjudication.
Commentary is not finality.
Narrative is not evidence.
9. The NSW Court of Appeal Referrals
In 2023, judges of the Supreme Court Court of Appeal, including Justices Leeming and Kirk, and Justices Basten and White, were expressly informed that the matters raised against us stemmed from unresolved allegations contained within pleadings and proceedings which had never proceeded to final adjudication.
Affidavits and responses were provided explaining precisely that concern.
We repeatedly stated that allegations arising from a statement of claim require judicial determination and cannot simply be treated as established facts.
Yet instead of those concerns being substantively addressed, the public judgments stated that this was all the more reason we should be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.
In one matter, documents and evidence referred to within the judgment itself were requested so that proper responses could be provided. We requested the material relied upon, including evidence allegedly underpinning conclusions recorded within the judgment.
Those materials were not properly provided before adverse steps were taken.
This is not a minor issue.
Judicial records must accurately reflect what was before the court and what was actually determined.
10. The Missing Lawful Process
What makes this even more alarming is what emerged from the materials before the judicial review proceedings before Justice Griffiths in November 2025.
The evidence appears to show that no genuine Chapter 5 investigative process was ever undertaken.
The respondents, the Law Society of NSW and its Council, simply recorded that Chapter 5 was not required and relied on s 45 powers and Rule 13 considerations, generally stating that they followed the “proper lawful process” under the Uniform Law.
Key underlying materials, including transcripts, affidavits, and court documents, were allegedly not obtained or reviewed by the respondents before adverse conclusions were reached.
Instead, what appears from the material is that outcomes had already been predetermined through an “unfitness” pathway without the lawful investigative and adjudicative safeguards ordinarily required for unresolved allegations.
Ms Valerie Griswold had made unfitness conclusions prior to the date of any Council meeting. She stated the only outcome for both of us. She had already exercised executive functions, including steps concerning the appointment of a manager to my practice and assessment of risks.
The affidavit material also raised serious questions about the evidence of any referral letter from the Legal Services Commissioner and whether an actual Council meeting took place on 30 May 2025.
The question therefore arises:
How can allegations ever be properly assessed, investigated, or resolved without obtaining the underlying court transcripts and core evidentiary materials?
How can they be determined by Ms Griswold or Council where, we say, such resolution required Chapter 5 processes and NCAT determination?
That is not due process.
That is not proper investigation.
And that is precisely why the legality of the process mattered so fundamentally before the Supreme Court.
11. Why This Matters Beyond Us
This issue is not merely about us.
It concerns the safety of every legal practitioner and every member of the public interacting with NSW regulatory bodies, including the Legal Services Commissioner and the Law Society of NSW.
Because if unresolved allegations alone can be materially relied upon to destroy a solicitor’s livelihood, interfere with practising rights, affect professional standing, and remove someone from the profession without adjudication or final findings, then the procedural protections embedded within the Uniform Law are rendered ineffective and illusory.
Unchecked power becomes unfettered power.
And once such injustice becomes recorded, repeated, and embedded into legal reasoning and public narrative, it begins to contaminate the legal landscape itself.
The first injustice then becomes the foundation for future injustices.
It becomes precedent.
And once precedent forms, the injustice inflicted upon one can then be inflicted upon many.
12. Right to Appeal
We have publicly announced our intention to appeal the judicial review judgment, particularly where we say the judgment failed to properly address the supervisory judicial review function concerning the legality of the decisions, the lawful process undertaken by the Law Society of NSW and its Council, and the exercise of administrative statutory power.
However, we are currently experiencing what we believe are significant barriers to accessing justice and pursuing those appellate rights, particularly in circumstances where the financial hardship we now face was directly caused by the alleged unlawful conduct and decisions which stripped us of our livelihood and primary source of income.
Given these matters are ongoing, we will provide further information regarding the status of those proceedings shortly, including concerns we hold regarding what may amount to a serious impediment to accessing appellate review of Justice Griffiths’ judicial review judgment.
13. A Question for the Profession and Society
The legal profession is not merely a profession. It is one of the guardians of the administration of justice itself.
If lawyers, institutions, media, and public authorities remain silent when fundamental issues concerning legality, jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and statutory power are raised, then the erosion of protections does not stop with one case.
It spreads quietly through the system itself.
We have raised these concerns publicly and privately.
We have approached authorities.
We have approached media.
We have attempted to bring attention to what we believe are serious issues concerning legality and process.
But we cannot change the system alone.
We are here to illuminate what we believe is a very serious issue within the legal system.
And once this information is known, the question no longer belongs only to us.
It belongs to all of us.
Because ultimately, society itself must decide:
Do we ignore these issues and allow them to perpetuate?
Or do we confront them before they become normalised?
That is not a question we alone can answer.
It is a question for the collective, the entire legal profession, institutions, and society itself.
— M. Odtojan
(By lived experience and observations - a witness and a victim).
Disclaimer: This article reflects allegations, concerns, opinions, lived experiences, and observations held by the author based on the evidence, materials, and proceedings presently available to them. The matters discussed remain subject to ongoing appellate and related proceedings. Nothing in this article is intended to assert the existence of findings beyond those formally determined by a court or tribunal.
Members of the public, media, and investigative reporters are welcome to review materials which have been made publicly accessible through the blogs provided on this site, including court documents, reports, publicly available judgments, and other source materials referred to throughout these proceedings, as well as obtaining court transcripts where available.
Readers are encouraged to independently compare court transcripts, judgments, correspondence, and related materials, and draw their own conclusions from the records and evidence available.
Comments