NSW Attorney General Called Parliamentary Findings a "Stitch-Up" and "Farcical" - Yet His Own Office Introduced "Prior Misconduct" Allegations With No Findings
- Jul 16
- 11 min read
Updated: Jul 21
NSW Attorney General Michael Daley condemned parliamentary findings against DPP Sally Dowling as a "stitch-up," "unsupported by evidence," and "farcical."
Yet his own office introduced allegations of "prior misconduct" against two lawyers despite there being no hearing, finding, determination, or lawful process establishing misconduct at all.
When scrutiny was directed at one of their own, following a parliamentary process involving evidence, witnesses, admissions, and findings, the Attorney General and the legal establishment doubled down, invoking reputation, status, titles, and opinion in the DPP's defence.
An appeal to authority.
But when allegations were directed at two lawyers, due process, fairness, and the rule of law appeared to vanish.
One standard for the inner circle. Another for everyone else.
If this is how aggressively the legal institutions protect one of their own despite findings, imagine the protection afforded when two lawyers report people and institutions within that same circle.
Retaliation. Loss of livelihood. Silence.
This article examines that contradiction and asks a central question:
What does it say about the rule of law in New South Wales if two lawyers can lose their practising rights, professional standing, and livelihood, including their law firm and their family's primary source of income, without any findings at all?
And what does it say about the conduct of the Attorney General, legal institutions (including the Law Society and Bar Association), and senior legal figures (including Senior Counsel and Crown Prosecutors), when findings against a powerful office-holder are condemned as "outrageous" and a "stitch-up," while allegations against two lawyers are allegedly treated as fact despite no findings existing at all?
👉 Sign the petition: Call for NSW Attorney General Michael Daley and MP Hugh McDermott to resign and for an independent investigation into the conduct of the Attorney General's office.
CONTENTS
Further Background
NSW Attorney General Michael Daley DDP findings and prior misconduct allegations
What This Article Is About
The Attorney General (AG) condemned parliamentary findings against the DPP as a "stitch-up".
Yet the AG's office introduced and relied upon allegations of "prior misconduct" against two lawyers despite there being no findings.
Those allegations were subsequently relied upon by the AG's office, the Law Society of NSW, and the OLSC.
For almost two years, the Attorney General's office has remained silent on requests to substantiate the representations made in its correspondence.
No lawful finding of misconduct has been identified to date. Not by any judge, court, tribunal, or disciplinary body.
Yet the allegations continue to be repeated and relied upon.
The two solicitors at the centre of this matter are both victims and witnesses.
This article examines whether the conduct of the Attorney General and legal institutions reveals a selective application of law, process, and accountability, one standard for powerful institutions and senior legal office-holders, and another for those outside their circle who dare expose them to scrutiny and hold them accountable.
The Contradiction, Stated Plainly
In July 2026, NSW Attorney General Michael Daley publicly condemned a parliamentary committee report concerning Director of Public Prosecutions Sally Dowling SC.
The Attorney General aggressively criticised the inquiry as "a stitch-up from the outset", criticised its findings as "unsupported by evidence", and labelled the report "farcical". He accused a seven-member parliamentary committee comprising representatives of different political parties of treating "mere suspicion and speculation as fact".
In the DPP's case, there was a parliamentary hearing, submissions, evidence, witnesses, and findings.
In the case of Ms Odtojan and Mr Bryl, there was no hearing, no findings, no determination, and no lawful process establishing misconduct.
Yet allegations of "prior misconduct" were nevertheless introduced and relied upon against them by the Attorney General's office and the Law Society of NSW.
That conduct in public office demands accountability.
2.1 The Attorney General's office was put on notice.
The Attorney General's office was informed that the Law Society's Legal Director, Ms Valerie Griswold, acting on behalf of the Council of the Law Society of NSW, had asserted misconduct as fact and acted upon it in a manner that adversely affected the rights, professional standing, law firm, and livelihoods of two lawyers.
The Attorney General, as the Minister responsible for the Legal Profession Uniform Law ("Uniform Law"), was expressly informed that no finding of misconduct existed.
Allegations of any misconduct against lawyers and/or legal practices are to be established through the processes prescribed by the Uniform Law.
The Attorney General's office did not investigate.
Instead, correspondence issued by MP and barrister Hugh McDermott stated that the Attorney General would not intervene. That same letter introduced the expression "alleged prior misconduct".
The correspondence further referred to appeal rights despite there being no identified NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal ("NCAT") decision, disciplinary determination, or other formal decision.
That conduct in public and administrative office calls for accountability.
It is alleged that what occurred to Ms Odtojan, Mr Bryl, and their firm was not the product of a lawful disciplinary process, but rather a coordinated effort involving the Attorney General's office, the Law Society of NSW, and the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner ("OLSC").
Real Findings Rejected. Allegations Treated as Findings
Whatever view one takes of the parliamentary committee's conclusions concerning DPP Sally Dowling SC, one fact cannot be disputed: there was a parliamentary process, evidence, witnesses, testimony, and findings. Those findings were controversial and disputed, but they existed.
By contrast, no equivalent finding was ever made in relation to the two lawyers: Marie Odtojan and Artem Bryl. No court, tribunal, disciplinary body, or other authority ever established misconduct against either of them.
Yet allegations of "prior misconduct" and "prior conduct" nevertheless emerged through correspondence issued by the Attorney General's office and became part of the narrative relied upon against the two lawyers.
The contrast is difficult to ignore. Findings against the DPP were publicly condemned as a "stitch-up". Allegations against two the lawyers were treated as though there were findings despite no lawful determination ever having been made.
In our view, the introduction of a "prior misconduct" narrative supported the Law Society's alleged predetermination of unfitness without any established finding capable of supporting it. That approach is inconsistent with the processes and safeguards contained within the Uniform Law.
For further background, information and articles about the broader circumstances surrounding these events, including concerns regarding court records alleged to contain false and incorrect records, read the blogs via OdtojanBrylLawyers.com.au
Attorney General's Own Words
Attorney General Michael Daley publicly described the parliamentary inquiry as "a stitch-up from the outset", "bordering on the abuse of the processes of parliament", and ultimately "farcical". He also criticised the committee's findings as "unsupported by evidence" and accused it of treating "mere suspicion and speculation as fact."
According to Shadow Attorney-General Susan Carter, these comments were made before he had apparently read the Parliamentary report itself.
Mr Daley announced that senior counsel would be briefed to review the report because of his "serious concerns about the recommendations and findings." However, he had already publicly expressed his rolled-up conclusions and dismissal of the report.
There is no issue with the Attorney General disagreeing with the parliamentary findings. The issue is how that disagreement was publicly expressed and the authority with which it was delivered.
As Attorney General, Mr Daley's words carry significant institutional weight. Publicly characterising a parliamentary report and process as a "stitch-up" and "unsupported by evidence" before any formal review had been completed is capable of undermining confidence in a statutory process.
The concern is not disagreement. The concern is consistency. Findings supported by a parliamentary process were publicly condemned, while allegations against two lawyers were introduced and relied upon despite no findings existing at all.
The Buck Stops at the Top
One of the most telling comments came from Shadow Attorney-General Susan Carter, a member of the committee that endorsed the majority's findings. Responding to Mr Daley's remarks, she said it was:
"a real shame that he's come straight out of the gates with those comments without apparently having read the report itself."
She also articulated a broader principle:
"The buck always stops at the top."
Following criticism by the Shadow Attorney General, an obvious question arises.
If allegations of "prior misconduct" and "prior conduct" originated through correspondence issued from the Attorney General's office, then the same principles of accountability debated in relation to the DPP applies equally to the Attorney General's own office.
The Attorney General, the Law Society, the Bar Association, Crown Prosecutors, and other senior legal figures were entitled to defend the DPP.
However, the public is equally entitled to ask:
Why was the focus on discrediting the inquiry rather than examining the parliamentary reports, the evidence and the findings?
Accountability cannot operate in only one direction.
The parliamentary reports, submissions, evidence and findings are publicly available and may be accessed via the NSW Parliament website. See NSW Parliament Resource links below
What Actually Happened to Us
For more than a year, we have been self-litigating without income after losing our practising certificates, our law firm, and our family's primary source of income.
For us, this issue is not theoretical. It is not an academic debate or a legal abstraction. It is a lived reality. It is the experience of a family stripped of its livelihood without what we contend was any lawful finding, disciplinary determination, or established misconduct capable of supporting such an outcome.
Yet allegations of "prior misconduct" came to be relied upon as though they were established facts.
The human cost has been profound. More than a year of self-funded litigation. Financial hardship. Professional stigma. The loss of a law practice built over many years. The loss of our family's primary source of income. These are not abstract legal principles. They are real-world consequences suffered by real people.
Nor were we the only ones affected. Clients who had entrusted us with their legal matters were left confused, concerned, and seeking answers about what had happened to their lawyers and their legal representation. The broader impact of these events extends beyond two individuals and reaches those who depended upon us professionally.
When we raised concerns through lawful channels and sought investigation of matters we believed required scrutiny, the focus did not turn to those concerns. Instead, it turned to us.
The consequences also extended beyond professional and financial harm. Public allegations of misconduct, particularly where no findings have been identified, create a risk that members of the public will assume wrongdoing has been established when it has not. In our experience, that perception has contributed to reputational harm, misunderstanding, hostility, and attempts by individuals with no legitimate interest in these matters to involve themselves in them.
That is why due process matters. Findings matter. Evidence matters. The distinction between an allegation and an established fact matters.
What makes this matter particularly significant is that it extends beyond our own circumstances.
In our view, the implications now reach far beyond two lawyers and one law practice. If serious allegations can be relied upon without any court finding, tribunal finding, disciplinary finding, or established determination of misconduct, then every lawyer should be concerned.
The question is no longer simply what happened to us. The question is what protections remain for others if the same approach can be repeated in future cases.
Justice Griffiths' decision now stands as authority. Yet, in our view, no lawful finding of misconduct, no established wrongdoing, and no disciplinary determination capable of supporting the allegations relied upon has ever been identified.
If that is correct, the precedent is troubling. It suggests that allegations alone may be sufficient to justify consequences of the most serious kind, including the loss of practising rights, professional standing, reputation, livelihood, and a law practice built over many years.
This is not a hypothetical concern. It is our lived experience.
Two lawyers and a family have already endured those consequences while continuing to ask a question that remains unanswered:
Where was the finding of misconduct?
To this day, no court, tribunal, disciplinary body, or other authority has identified a finding of misconduct against either of us.
That is why this issue matters. It is not merely about us. It is about whether allegations can replace findings, and whether process can be replaced by discretion, when the consequences are severe enough to destroy careers, livelihoods, professional reputations, and public confidence in the fairness of the legal system.
A Pattern of Institutional Self-Protection
The response to the parliamentary findings was notable not merely because of its speed, but because of its nature.
The Attorney General described the findings as a "stitch-up", "unsupported by evidence", and "farcical". Former DPP Nicholas Cowdery KC reportedly called them "outrageous". Other senior legal figures and legal bodies quickly rallied in support of the DPP.
They were entitled to do so.
What is striking, however, is that much of the response focused on the DPP's reputation, integrity, supporters, and standing rather than the findings themselves.
The DPP herself accepted in evidence that information had been provided from her office to the media. Whether one agrees with the committee's conclusions or not, that admission alone raised legitimate questions deserving scrutiny.
The committee did not remove the DPP from office. Rather, following its inquiry and findings. it recommended that the AG establish a formal inquiry to consider whether the DPP remained fit to continue in office.
The Attorney General rejected that course. He publicly stated that he would be the "last person" to recommend to the Governor of New South Wales that such a proposal be pursued.
Much of the Attorney General's public response, together with the legal establishment, appeared directed towards defending the DPP rather than engaging with the parliamentary report, findings, admissions, and recommendations.
Titles are not evidence. Reputation is not evidence. Popularity is not evidence.
As discussed in our article via our website titled 'A case of ... Titles Before Law', the rule of law requires findings to be answered with evidence and lawful reason, not appeals to authority.
The public is entitled to ask:
If the findings against the DPP were truly wrong, why was so much emphasis placed on who supported the DPP rather than on demonstrating why the findings themselves were wrong?
The Legal Framework, Briefly
Misconduct is a legal finding, not a description.
Under the Uniform Law, conduct allegations are ordinarily dealt with through statutory processes designed to investigate, particularise, and determine allegations before serious professional consequences can follow.
We contend that no Council determination, NCAT finding, or disciplinary finding of misconduct was ever made against either of us. Yet allegations of "prior misconduct" were relied upon as though they had already been established.
Further Background
Readers seeking the broader background, including the Local Court proceedings, Piper Alderman issues, and media reporting of our case, can find those matters addressed in our earlier blog articles via OdtojanBrylLawyers.com.au
Why This Matters Beyond Lawyers
This is not merely a dispute involving two lawyers. If allegations can replace findings, due process becomes optional.
If public officials can rely upon allegations that have never been established through lawful process, statutory safeguards become meaningless.
The principle at stake protects everyone.
No person should lose their livelihood, reputation, professional standing, or liberty on the basis of allegations that were never proven.
A Call for Action
We are calling for:
The resignation of NSW Attorney General Michael Daley and MP Hugh McDermott, and an independent parliamentary investigation into their conduct;
A parliamentary inquiry into the conduct of the Attorney General's office;
An independent examination of how allegations of "prior misconduct" and "prior conduct" originated, were recorded, and came to be relied upon;
An examination of why repeated requests for clarification and substantiation have gone unanswered for almost two years;
An examination of whether the safeguards established by the Legal Profession Uniform Law were properly observed; and
Independent scrutiny of the conduct of all public officials involved.
If parliamentary scrutiny was appropriate when concerns were raised about the DPP, it is equally appropriate when concerns are raised about the Attorney General's own office.
Accountability cannot operate in only one direction.
No public office should be beyond scrutiny. No public official should be above accountability.
This campaign is not about special treatment. It is about equal treatment under the law.
The contradiction is simple. Findings supported by a parliamentary process, evidence, witnesses, admissions, and recommendations were publicly criticised as a "stitch-up" and "unsupported by evidence". Yet allegations against two lawyers were introduced and relied upon despite no findings having been identified at all.
In one case, findings were questioned. In another, allegations were treated as findings.
👉 Sign the petition: Call for NSW Attorney General Daley & MP McDermott to resign and be investigated
👉 Share it. Public accountability depends upon public awareness.
For more than a year, we have been self-litigating without income while pursuing these matters. If you believe in the principles of accountability, due process, and the equal application of the law, you may also support our work through our GoFundMe: https://gofund.me/b32c3d4c
---------------------------------------------------
Sources Referenced in this post
Parliament Resources:
Inquiry details and documents: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/parliamentary-business/committees/inquiry-details?committeeInquiryId=3151
ABC News, "NSW Crown prosecutors' statement in support of Sally Dowling DPP report," 8 July 2026: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-08/nsw-crown-prosecutors-statement-support-sally-dowling-dpp-report/106893966
Sydney Morning Herald, "'Outrageous': Legal heavyweights back Dowling after controversial report," Michaela Whitbourn, 8 July 2026: https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/outrageous-former-top-prosecutor-backs-dowling-after-controversial-report-20260708-p60dj1.html
The Law Society of NSW and NSW Bar Association, Joint Statement, "Fundamental importance of an independent ODPP," 8 July 2026: https://www.lawsociety.com.au/publications-and-resources/news-media-releases/fundamental-importance-independent-odpp
Disclaimer The views expressed are opinions based on our interpretation of publicly available information, articles, records, correspondence, and other documents. Readers should review the underlying materials and form their own conclusions.
NSW Attorney General Michael Daley DDP findings prior misconduct allegations
Comments