Erin Patterson sentenced - Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Justice Must Not Only Be Bone, it must Be Seen To Be Done

Erin Patterson has been sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 33 years.

This case reminds us of the importance of the administration of justice, that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The Rule of Law demands that power be exercised through due process.

In criminal law, even where the offence is serious and the judge has the power to impose life imprisonment, the court cannot act on power alone. There must be due process, a hearing, tested evidence, and a judgment before sentencing.

In civil law, when someone files a claim, the court may have jurisdiction and the power to make orders. But again, it cannot simply exercise that power. There must be a hearing, submissions, and evidence considered before any order is made.

That is the rule of law. Power must be exercised through process.

The Law Society’s Bypass of Due Process

By contrast, the Law Society of NSW used Section 45 to render two lawyers “unfit” without any hearing, without due process, and without applying the safeguards in Chapter 5 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Uniform Law).

They circumvented an entire Chapter of the Uniform Law and the required legal proceedings, in this case, usurping the role of NCAT.

This is not law. It is lawlessness.

Human Dignity and the Right to Work

As Justice Michael Lee observed in the recent Qantas case where he ordered an unprecedented $90 million penalty against the airline, when people are deprived of their ability to work, they are deprived of their “human dignity” and of the ability to be active participants in society.

That is exactly what has been done by the Law Society of NSW to two lawyers with unblemished records, no breaches, and no adverse findings.

What Did These Lawyers Do?

They acted lawfully. They submitted reports and notices of misconduct and improprieties to the very regulators established by statute to receive and investigate such reports. One pursued a private civil tort claim. The other briefly advocated at an interlocutory leave-to-appeal hearing in the NSW Court of Appeal.

For these lawful acts, they were punished. Judges penalised them simply for exercising the right to seek leave to appeal, for accessing the courts.

They were both witnesses in those proceedings, yet the judges’ records excluded their evidence and eliminated all reference to the conference central to the case. The judgments instead falsely asserted that the claim had “no basis” and “no evidence.”

The same judges then referred the witnesses themselves, innocent parties, to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) for investigation, effectively targeting their profession for daring to make a lawful claim.

This is not law. It is interference with the administration of justice by judicial officers who appear to have perverted their oaths and duties to uphold the law.

False Records and Referrals on False Premises

False records were made to state that their claim was “baseless,” when in reality every representation was supported by law, facts, and evidence, as confirmed in court transcripts and documents.

The judges went further:

• False records were made on behalf of three defendants who never appeared in court and gave no evidence.

• A referral to the OLSC was issued on these false premises.

• 
  

The lawyers’ reports, dating back to 2016, and their District Court claim in 2022, were directed against individuals whose conduct compromised the integrity of both the legal system and the profession, individuals shielded by officers within the OLSC and the Law Society’s Professional Standards Department (PSD).

Every report was closed without investigation, without inquiry, and without accountability, despite the statutory obligation under Section 465 of the Uniform Law to refer suspected criminal offences to police.

The 2024 Referrals and the Systemic Cover-Up

In 2024, the NSW Court of Appeal referrals were seized upon by the regulators as a pretext to target two lawyers and their law firm. Those referrals were never investigated and produced no outcome — a direct disregard of court orders, which may amount to contempt of court.

Instead, the regulators relied solely on judicial commentaries, not findings, for ad hominem attacks to support their predetermined outcome. These commentaries came from judges whose conduct had already been called into question for making false records, about which the regulators had been duly notified.

Such acts are discoverable simply by comparing the judgments with the contemporaneous transcripts and evidence.

The regulators ignored all notices, deliberately circumvented NCAT, and ensured the lawyers could not be heard or present their evidence. This protected not only the alleged fraud and false records of the judges, but also the regulators’ own failure to comply with their statutory duties under the Uniform Law to refer suspected offences to the proper authorities.

This is not merely retaliation. It is a systemic cover-up.

Stripping Away Dignity and Access to Justice

The regulators not only unlawfully stripped two lawyers of their practising rights and their livelihoods, they stripped them of their human dignity.

And their actions go further still: they stripped their clients and the wider community of lawful access to justice and legal representation.

Do you know what it feels like for a client to suddenly lose their legal representation? They are left without help in a system full of complex, often urgent requirements. They lose faith.

They too are stripped of their dignity, embarrassed and humiliated, forced to explain to the court why their solicitor has been removed for reasons that have nothing to do with them.

This humiliation touches everyone associated. It is a collective stripping of human dignity.

Collapse of Public Confidence

The awareness that such tyrannical and unlawful actions were taken by legal regulators against two lawyers, who breached nothing, had no prior adverse records, were denied due process, and were simply branded “unfit” without any lawful determination, brings the entire legal system and profession into disrepute.

The public inevitably loses trust and confidence. They see no integrity in the legal regulators and begin to question whether the system is fair and just. It undermines the very administration of justice.

The Threat to Clients

What is even more shocking is that the Law Society now seeks the records of the very clients they have already harmed, people whose cases they unlawfully disrupted, whose representation they stripped away.

Clients deserve protection from these regulators, not exposure to further intrusion and harm. They must be shielded from unlawful and corrupt conduct.

Accountability Must Return to the Law

his is the work of the Law Society’s Professional Standards Department and Legal Regulation divisions, the 15-member Council and its President, and the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, with the assistance of the Attorney General and MP Hugh McDermott, who together created a fabricated category of “alleged prior misconduct,”  a classification that does not exist under the Legal Profession Uniform Law.

By their conduct in these cases, they have not upheld the rule of law or protected the public, they have eroded it. Their actions demonstrate lawlessness cloaked in authority, targeting innocent lawyers, their firm, and their families, stripping them of their livelihoods and human dignity.

This is a reflection of them, of their character and what they stand for: a cowardly act, carried out by those who ignored every notice and silenced their victims in order to commit multiple unlawful acts in office, without accountability.

This is not Australia. This is tyranny, and it has no place in a democratic society such as ours.

The consequences of these unlawful actions are irreparable and far-reaching, and yet to be fully realised. Already, members of the public have been emboldened to breach legal agreements and disregard the courts, believing that the Law Society and OLSC place them above the law.

It remains the solemn duty of lawyers to protect their clients from those who have already shown themselves capable of acting with malice, unlawfulness, and corruption.

#RuleOfLaw #Justice #AccessToJustice #HumanRights #HumanDignity #ProtectClients #OBL #NSWLaw #PublicInterest