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 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. Two NSW 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. We were 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.

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 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 of those referrals, 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 virtual MS Teams meeting 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 to the court by a counsel.

Ms Valerie Griswold, Director of Professional Standards (Legal Regulation) of the Law Society, was formally notified of her alleged improper conduct in our first correspondence in August 2024 and was expressly requested to recuse herself from any involvement in matters concerning us. Those notices were ignored and never addressed.

In the Supreme Court proceedings, Ms Griswold’s affidavit evidence confirms that she drafted the unfitness decisions for both solicitors and that she had already appointed a manager to the legal practice (Christopher Nolan) on 21 and 22 May 2025, before any Council meeting took place on 29 May 2025.

The Law Society Council subsequently “adopted” all three decisions already prepared by Ms Griswold purportedly during the virtual Ms Teams meeting on 29 May 2025. Those decisions were then signed and recorded as having been made by the “Council of the Law Society of NSW”, with s 45 certificates issued by email on 30 May 2025 to each solicitor.

There is no lawful process under the Legal Profession Uniform Law that supports these actions.

In the proceedings, Senior Counsel Kate Morgan made no submission identifying any provision of the Uniform Law that authorised either Ms Griswold or the Council to undertake this sequence of actions. No statutory pathway was articulated to justify how unfitness determinations and the appointment of a manager could lawfully occur in this manner.

Our position is that neither the Council nor Ms Griswold had any lawful basis to make unfitness determinations against two practising solicitors, nor to appoint a manager to the legal practice. The lawful avenue for determining conduct-related matters is mandated under Chapter 5 of the Uniform Law, a process which the Law Society has expressly acknowledged it bypassed, stating in its recorded reply to the summons that the entire Chapter 5 process was “not required”.

Senior Counsel relied solely on s 45 of the Uniform Law and Rule 13 of the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules, together with case authorities concerning mental health incapacity, such as Picos, where unfitness determinations were supported by independent medical evidence. Those authorities are inapplicable to the present case. There are no medical reports, no incapacity findings, and no factual basis to analogise this matter to mental health cases. See Judicial Review Documents

In effect, the same body that raised untested allegations then relied on those allegations to form adverse views that both solicitors were unfit to practise law. This approach is not authorised by the Uniform Law and collapses the distinction between allegation, investigation, and determination.

For these reasons, we have never accepted the purported decisions said to have been made by the Council on 30 May 2025. They are not lawful decisions.

Formal notices rejecting the validity of these actions were provided to the Law Society of New South Wales and to the appointed manager. Those notices are published and referenced in this blog

The actions taken by the Law Society and its Council 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 in Court;

• the documents we were ambushed on the day of court, simply handed up by Senior Counsel; and

• the attempts to suppress us as witnesses and victims under the guise of lawful authority by seeking suppression orders for the 'whole of the commonwealth' to suppress documents Ms Griswold's memo and the extensive referenced documents in that memo which was represented to have been relied upon in the purported Council meeting.

  
  

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