NSW Supreme Court Judicial Review Update - Odtojan and Bryl

Judicial Review in Supreme Court of NSW - Odtojan and Bryl.Odtojan & Bryl's Judicial Review Court Case: A Summary of the Grounds and Submissions

NSW Supreme Court Judicial Review Update

Following the judicial review hearings conducted on 26 and 27 November 2025 before His Honour Acting Justice Griffiths, judgments were reserved. Two months of silence followed. We recently received email from the Defendants' solicitors (Hicksons, Hunt & Hunt), and shortly thereafter received email notification from the Judge’s Associate that judgment would be delivered today 4 February at 10:00 am.

Whatever the outcome, we will continue to pursue accountability for the injustices inflicted on us, our law firm, and our clients by the Law Society of NSW and the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC).

For those familiar with the case of Kevin Yam, a Hong Kong lawyer who was struck from the Roll of Solicitor in hong Kong following formal proceedings before the Hong Kong Supreme Court, prompting international concern about the rule of law, it is important to understand that our situation in Australia is even more extreme and strikes at the core of the rule of law in Australia. Two Australian lawyers were removed from legal practice and a law firm was forced to cease operations by the Law Society of NSW without due process, without any independent disciplinary proceedings, and without any tribunal determination. We were rendered “unfit” on the basis of asserted views alone and notified by email.

Unlike Mr Yam, we were never afforded a hearing, never provided with particulars capable of response, and never had our case tested before an independent decision-maker. The Law Society of NSW rendered us “unfit” based on its own views, without lawful foundation and without any independent determination.

The decision relied on attached materials and alleged issues that were never provided to us, denying us any opportunity to know the case against us or to respond. We were ambushed and subjected to character assassination without any right to be heard, before adverse commentaries and records were made that have caused serious, irreparable and ongoing damage to our professional reputations as legal practitioners.

These records were made without lawful process and have caused serious and ongoing damage to our professional reputations as legal practitioners.

This occurred in New South Wales, Australia, to two Australian lawyers and their law firm. It is a clear example of the erosion of the rule of law.

These are matters, amongst others, which we formally reported to the relevant authorities including NSW Premier calling for decisive action and a Royal Commission.

Removal Without Due Process

Two solicitors were rendered “unfit” to practise law, and a law firm was forced to cease operations, without due process and without lawful finding, based instead on 'opinions' and 'views'.

A narrative of “alleged prior misconduct” and “alleged prior conduct” was created and relied upon, despite those categories not existing in our case and not being recognised under the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Uniform Law).

The Uniform Law is unambiguous: All conduct matters must be dealt with under Chapter 5 (s 262), through the disciplinary framework requiring determination by the designated tribunal - NCAT. Chapter 5 process was neither commenced nor acknowledged by the Law Society or the OLSC as applicable in our cases.

We were deprived of all rights and protections afforded under the Legal Profession Uniform Law. In circumstances where all legal practitioners are entitled to procedural fairness, notice, and a fair hearing before any adverse determination is made, we were denied these basic safeguards. The deprivation of these fundamental principles strikes at the heart of the rule of law.

Failure of the OLSC and Regulatory Process

The OLSC / Legal Services Commissioner, Ms Samantha Gulliver, never communicated with either solicitor regarding alleged referrals from the NSW Supreme Court, referrals which would necessarily fall under Chapter 5. There is no outcome, no notice, and no evidence of any investigation.

The OLSC did not possess the full court transcripts or complete court materials, despite court orders. We were never notified by the OLSC the particulars of whether it referred matters to the Law Society, nor under what statutory power or chapter any such referral was purportedly made.

Despite this, written correspondence from the NSW Attorney General Mr Daley and MP Hugh McDermott asserted that “investigations” were being undertaken and that communications had occurred with the Law Society. Yet, the Law Society has never acknowledged any such communications.

Requests for particulars directed to the Attorney General and MP McDermott have gone unanswered for over a year.

Council Decision-Making Concealed

We were effectively rendered unfit following the Council of the Law Society's Microsoft Teams meeting convened at 4:00 pm on 29 May 2025 which we were never given prior notice of. Unfitness determinations, especially where conduct is alleged, cannot lawfully be made by a council meeting, particularly where Chapter 5 and NCAT are the mandated processes.

This Council meeting, and any minutes of it, were not disclosed in:

• the written decisions issued on 30 May 2025;

• the affidavit evidence of Ms Valerie Griswold; or

• any prior correspondence.

Nor was there disclosure of interference with our solicitor registry data, Law Society memberships, or law firm notifications. After more than 12 years of continuous Law Society notifications, all notifications ceased. Before any decision was issued to us, we had effectively been removed from the Law Society’s databases, without notice and without lawful basis.

A document of Council's online Microsoft team meeting later described as “minutes of meeting” only emerged on the day of court, when Senior Counsel Kate Morgan handed it up at the bar table after we raised an issue of the absence of evidence in our written submissions and issued a Notice to Produce and a Notice to Admit. The document was not exhibited in any affidavit, was not supported by any witness evidence, and was not verified by any deponent. It was simply handed up by a counsel.

Ms Griswold, PSD Director/Legal Regulation, had been notified of her alleged improper conduct in our first correspondence in August 2024 and was asked to recuse herself. Those notices were ignored and not addressed.

The same body that raised the allegations also determined them.

This is not compliant with the Uniform Law and it is fundamentally contrary to the principles of procedural fairness.

What Comes Next

Once judgment is delivered, we will provide further details regarding:

• the materials relied upon;

• the representations made to the Court; and

• attempts to suppress us as witnesses and victims under the guise of lawful authority.

  
  

We have also requested that the transcripts relied upon by the Court be provided to all parties.

The rule of law does not survive silence, concealment, or administrative power exercised without jurisdiction.

Disclaimer: This notice is a public interest disclosure, public awareness, and education. Based on the lived experience of lawyers Marie Odtojan and Artem Bryl, witnesses, victims, and whistleblowers who acted lawfully. This post is subject to change where corrections, amendments, or additional information may be required. For queries, please contact: oblawyers.media@gmail.com