Odtojan Bryl Public Statement - A Response to Ms Ereboni Yazdani’s Self-Nominations for Re-election of the Law Society of NSW Council: Following Councillors' Alleged Unlawful Conduct
- Odtojan Bryl Lawyers
- Sep 30
- 7 min read
Updated: Oct 5
Odtojan Bryl Public Statement - A Response to Ms Ereboni Yazdani’s Self-Nominations for Re-election of the Law Society of NSW Council: Following Councillors' Alleged Unlawful Conduct
Our first-hand lived experience of these councillors’ conduct in the Law Society of NSW Council demonstrates that Ms Ereboni Yazdani’s self-serving description of them as “principled and caring” could not be further from the truth.
This is our response to Ms Ereboni Yazdani’s call to re-elect the same group of five councillors, including herself, to the Law Society of NSW Council. With the exception of Mr Wen-Ts’ai Lim, the individuals she names have all received detailed notices from us about serious breaches of due process and alleged unlawful conduct, notices which they systematically ignored and never responded to. We also had made a public statment in response to LinkedIn Group created by these councillors posts about their self- nomination for re-election.
Does this demonstrate people of integrity who are “principled and caring” representatives?
From our lived experience, these councillors, who are themselves lawyers, have acted as council members that caused devastating harm to two lawyers and their firm, lawyers who had done nothing wrong.
A deeply concerning question arises: if they could do this to us, in concert with the Law Society’s Professional Standards Department officers, Ms Valerie Griswold (Director) and Ms Nadya Haddad (Deputy Director), then what else has been done under their watch in office?
How many other cases have been buried?
How many threats have been made to others?
How many livelihoods have been destroyed by issuing Section 45 certificates “out of thin air,” without lawful foundation, findings, or process?
How many lawyers have they framed as “unfit,” refusing their practising certificates — lawyers who were innocent, never afforded due legal process, and where no determinations were ever made?
The legal community and the public must be made aware of their conduct in office, conduct which they fail to disclose. This raises serious concerns not only about their fitness to serve as councillors but also about their fitness to remain as legal practitioners.
As every lawyer knows, ignoring notices is no small matter, especially where the issues raised include alleged unlawful conduct, acting in bad faith, denying due process, interfering with solicitors’ records and data, obstructing the administration of justice, and failing to carry out statutory duties.
Here is a brief list of what these councillors have done. This is their work. The legal community must now decide: do these actions reflect the rule of law, the standards of the legal profession, and the integrity expected of people who took an oath to uphold the law and protect the profession?
What Happened to Us
Two Lawyers with Clean Records
We had no breaches, no prior disciplinary records, and posed no danger to society or the public.
There was no proven case against us, no findings of professional or unsatisfactory conduct, no NCAT proceedings, and no court determination.
Yet, without any lawful process or determination by NCAT, our practising certificates were taken away and our law firm was forced to close.
The principal’s practising certificate was refused on a false record of “unfitness”, created without any proven case of unfitness, and condoned by the Council.
Section 45 Documents Issued “Out of Thin Air”
Section 45 decisions signed by unfit Director of Legal regulation the Law Society of NSW
False Record of Unfitness
A legal document was created stating “unfitness” where no proven case of unfitness existed. A breach of the Solicitors’ Conduct Rules, which prohibit making unfounded allegations against fellow solicitors.
Ignored Notices & Evasion
Ms. Griswold was notified from the outset (August 2024) of her alleged unlawful conduct but never answered.
She later reappeared only to sign the Section 45 documents.
Council members were also notified of these serious matters, yet ignored every notice and condoned the making of false records.
Even after being put on notice of what we allege to be criminal offences, further unlawful acts occurred, including the unexplained disappearance of solicitors’ data.
No Due Process
These refusals were issued with no NCAT proceedings, no legal process, no findings, and nothing proven, yet condoned and justified by councillors now seeking re-election.
Interference with Justice by Ambush
What was done to us was not just a denial of due process, it was a cowardly act. We were deprived of our right to present our evidence and our case. Decisions were made by ambush, not by law. Such conduct shows there was no case against us, so the system was cheated instead.
Challenged in the Supreme Court
We are challenging the legality of these Section 45 decisions in the Supreme Court.
Through their lawyers Hicksons and Hunt & Hunt, the councillors have filed vague responses asserting they “complied with proper process under the Uniform Law”
without citing a single provision or providing evidence. – Such a response is, in our view, unintelligible and only highlights the lack of lawful process.
Notices Ignored & Voices Silenced
All our written notices about alleged unlawful conduct, clarifications of jurisdiction, powers, due process and the lawful basis for interfering with practising certificates and tampering with solicitors’ records were met with silence.
Shortly after our notices, councillors’ contact email addresses disappeared from the Law Society website, even though they had been displayed for years.
This is not regulation. No lawful process ignores someone whose livelihood is at stake.
Protecting the Wrongdoers
Instead of protecting the rule of law, the public, and the witnesses and victims who reported misconduct and suspected offences to the Law Society’s Professional Standards Department with evidence, these councillors chose to protect the very people we had reported, including Piper Alderman and others, for suspected fraud, alleged to have been carried out systematically nationwide, and for fictitious pleadings dating back to 2016.
They failed to act on the voluminous evidence provided and ignored their statutory duty under s 465 of the Uniform Law to refer suspected offences to police.
Abuse of Power Under the Guise of Regulation
They usurped the roles of NCAT, the courts, Parliament and investigative authorities, placing themselves as accuser, judge, and executioner all at once, bypassing the entire Chapter 5 Uniform Law disciplinary framework.
They fabricated and shifted allegations, yet admitted in their own decision there was no misconduct to report under Rule 13, while still declaring us “unfit.”
In the same decisions they raised lists of “conduct issues” and character attacks but ensured we had no legal process to defend ourselves and present evidence.
They even recycled commentaries from unrelated NCAT cases (such as Tangsilat and Sideris) and applied them to us despite our circumstances being completely different and without any NCAT proceedings.
Ms Griswold herself has an suspension record with a red “Consumer Alert” on the California State Bar, yet she rendered us “unfit” without due process under the law. No Director or head of legal regulation regulating other lawyers should hold such a record. This undermines the integrity of the regulatory office.
Ripple Effect on Innocent Parties
This has not only harmed us; clients, banks and third parties have been dragged into the fallout.
Formal reports have been made to protect ourselves, our clients and the public from harm. The consequences of issuing legal instruments without lawful foundation are devastating and far-reaching.
This erosion of the rule of law brings the legal system and the profession into disrepute and demonstrates an urgent need for intervention, reform and parliamentary action.
Our case shows how acts can be coordinated to issue documents without lawful foundation to destroy the livelihoods of innocent lawyers and then frame them as “unfit” without any findings or records.
❓ Questions the Public Should Ask
Who are these people? What do they truly stand for?
How can they operate with integrity, independence and objectivity when they are compromised and have a self-interest to protect their deeds?
If they can issue a Section 45 “out of thin air” against two innocent lawyers with clean records, no breaches and no proven case, they can do it to anyone.
This is not regulation. This is abuse of power and self-preservation dressed up as regulation. It undermines the rule of law and public trust in the legal system and the profession.
Protecting the integrity of the Law Society of NSW
Let this be clear: we are not undermining the Law Society of NSW. We are defending its integrity because that is our duty as lawyers, as officers of the court, who have uncovered improprieties carried out in office that must be addressed.
The Law Society has been compromised by individuals who do not represent its mission to protect the public, serve the profession, or uphold the rule of law. Their continued presence in office undermines public trust and calls into question the legitimacy of the Council itself.
We are sounding the alarm because improprieties have been unfolding in silence, covert, unchecked, and hidden behind the authority of the Law Society of NSW. These individuals have used its name and powers for improper purposes, carrying out unlawful acts under the guise of legal authority.
The consequences are far-reaching and devastating, not just for us, but for the entire legal profession and the public it serves.
For more information, including a video update from Artem explaining what was done to us and the publicly released decisions, documents, and threats by the Law Society PSD Director and Deputy Director (Ms Griswold and Ms Haddad) and the councillors, visit:
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
Comments