One Year On. No Findings. No Adjudication. Just Allegations, and a Judgment That Made It Precedent for Every Australian Lawyer.
- May 30
- 18 min read
Updated: May 31
Marie Odtojan and Artem Bryl | 30 May 2026
"The selective application of the law is not justice. It is the weaponisation of justice against the very people it was built to protect." - Marie Odtojan
"They came with mere allegations, not evidence. They weaponised the system to silence, to retaliate, to destroy, and with that, a wrecking ball of lawlessness ensued, and livelihoods were destroyed in an instant.
"The king wanted a judge who knew the law well enough to defeat it." - Thomas More, Utopia
Legal knowledge turned against the law, to defeat justice. The system's own machinery used to defeat every protection the system was built to provide. Justice perverted from within. By those sworn to protect it.
No one should wield the law and the courts in their favour without the administration of justice. That is not law. That is abuse of power.
We were not supposed to survive this. We are still here. Truth does not expire. And justice, real justice, is worth fighting for."
- Marie Odtojan
💡 Accessibility tip: If you are reading this on a PC, you can have this article read aloud to you. Simply highlight the text, right click, and select "Read Aloud" or "Speak" depending on your browser. On a Mac, highlight the text, right click, and select "Speech" → "Start Speaking." On your phone, your accessibility settings can read any screen aloud.
ARTICLE SUMMARY
One year ago, Marie Odtojan and Artem Bryl lost their livelihoods and legal practice following decisions made by the Law Society of NSW, which they allege were unlawful.
This article examines the events leading up to that outcome, the absence of any findings by any court or tribunal, the reliance on allegations that were never formally adjudicated, and the legal and regulatory processes that followed. It explores the Court of Appeal referrals, the Law Society's use of the practising certificate renewal process rather than the disciplinary framework, the judicial review judgment of 4 February 2026, and the broader implications for procedural fairness, transparency, and the rule of law in Australia.
Whether read as a personal account, a regulatory case study, or a warning about legal process, the central question remains:
How can career-ending consequences follow without a proven case, without findings, adjudication, or tested evidence?
Is this the rule of law? Is this democracy?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
No Findings. No Adjudication. Just Allegations.
Today marks exactly one year since the Law Society of NSW stripped us of our livelihoods, refusing the renewals of our practising certificates, ceasing the operations of our legal practice because Ms Odtojan was the sole principal, and leaving clients devastated without legal representation.
In one decision. On one day. As revealed by evidence before the Supreme Court, our professional lives and our legal practice were apparently decided at a 4pm online Microsoft Teams meeting on 29 May 2025, by the Council of the Law Society, (without our presence or notice), which we allege had no jurisdiction to make the conclusions it purported to make.
No finding of misconduct. No client complaint. No breach proven. No evidence tested. No court or tribunal ever adjudicated a single allegation against us.
Just allegations. Treated as facts. Our livelihoods gone.
It Didn't Start on 30 May 2025
This began long before any issued decision. Done quietly, without notice, and without any lawful basis we were told about.
From mid-2024, our professional records were altered, our membership affected, our profiles changed, without notification, without any decision we were informed of, and without any of the procedural protections the law requires. We found out not because anyone told us. We discovered it ourselves.
On 15 May 2024 we applied to renew our practising certificates as we had every year. In July, we received a letter from Ms Valerie Griswold of the Law Society's Professional Standards Department, already treating misconduct as established fact, with no particulars, placing our certificates "in force," seeking admissions, and asking what conditions we would accept on our own certificates. We were treated as guilty before any finding had ever been made.
We immediately raised our concerns, including evidence of what we alleged were false records in the judgments being relied upon, the exculpatory court transcripts, and the incomplete referral materials. We asked Ms Griswold to recuse herself. We were ignored.
By 30 May 2025, when the formal Decision was issued, it was not the beginning. It was the end of a year of it. But it was also the beginning of what we had to fight next.
What We Actually Did, And Did Not Do
Because misinformation continues to circulate, let us make this clear.
We did not provide any legal services. No client made a complaint. This arose because I, Marie Odtojan, was a client, a victim of impropriety by lawyers retained to act for me: Mr George Nicolas Ford (Coram Chambers, formerly Edmund Barton Chambers), Mr Thomas Glynn (Principal of Glynns Lawyers), and Senior Counsel Mr Miles Condon SC (New Chambers). For Further Details see: The Undocumented Truth of Odtojan v Ford, Glynn and Condon SC
I accessed the courts as a litigant in person to seek justice. Artem Bryl, my husband, advocated for me in leave to appeal proceedings before the NSW Court of Appeal, proceedings where each party has 20 minutes to argue whether leave should be granted. He referred to the arguments, submissions, statement of claim, law and answered the judges questions focusing on 'the contract' not about the appealable grounds arguments which were not really ventilated because the judges kept asking what do you think is the contract, Mr Bryl?" They were so focused on the contract and even agreed that there was no contract. That is all he did. But the judgments present an entire different picture, one that is not corroborated by court transcript.
I was a party to proceedings. Not a lawyer providing legal services. I was seeking justice for wrongs done to me. Mr Bryl was collateral, he was targeted because he advocated for me, he sought leave to be not a McKenzie friend, he stated 'Amicus Friend' which meant 'Amicus Curiae,' even that is not accurately presented in the judgment. No McKenzie friend can present a case before the court, that is not the role of a McKenzie friend.
What Was Used Against Us
The Tort Damages Case Against Mr Ford, Mr Glynn and Mr Condon SC in the District Court of NSW
In those District Court proceedings, I was prevented from presenting my case. The court transcript shows three notices of motion were filed, but only one party presented submissions, Senior Counsel Mr Anthony McInerney SC, counsel for Mr Condon, both from New Chambers. He presented evidence from the bar table, spoke on behalf of Mr Ford and Mr Glynn who were not his clients and had their own counsel who never objected, made representations on my behalf, and used my affidavit and exhibit documents to present his submissions.
When it was my turn to reply, after approximately one and a half hours of Mr McInerney SC presenting his case, I was prevented by Judge Norton from presenting my own case, submissions, or evidence. The court transcript reveals I answered questions but never presented my submissions, went through my evidence, or addressed the pleadings across all three notices of motion.
What the NSW Court of Appeal Did in the Summons Seeking Leave to Appeal
When I sought leave to appeal, the NSW Court of Appeal, instead of addressing the appeal grounds, targeted me and my advocate Mr Bryl, both professionally and personally. Justices Leeming and Kirk recorded ethical breaches in circumstances where no hearing on those matters had ever taken place and they had no jurisdiction to determine them, ethical breaches and disciplinary matters being governed exclusively by the Legal Profession Uniform Law.
They then cited observations of ethical breaches from their first judgment in their show cause referral judgment (No.2). Those observations have since been cited as authority in other proceedings. When put on notice of our concerns about their conduct, they stated the matters should be referred without addressing what had been put to them.
The court transcript is the evidence. It does not match what was recorded in the judgment
The Referral of Papers Weaponised to Strip Livelihoods
The NSW Court of Appeal made a referral of papers for "possible conduct breaches" to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC). It was a referral for consideration, not a finding, not an established breach.
However, as revealed by a document handed up for the first time at the hearing on 27 November 2025, which I immediately objected to, only for the objection to be dismissed by the judge, who accepted the document without scrutiny stating it was a "business record," the Commissioner referred the matter to the Law Society not under Chapter 5 but as information for the Law Society to consider under Chapter 3.
The Law Society then took those unresolved, interlocutory observations, treated them as established facts, and undertook adverse actions before any formal decision was issued, all under the narrative of a fitness assessment under Chapter 3, to render two lawyers unfit to practise.
In every other case involving conduct allegations against legal practitioners, those matters go through the full extent of Chapter 5 with all its safeguards, procedural fairness, and natural justice protections. Those case authorities are abundant, accessible, and known to all legal professionals: any allegations must be adjudicated independently by NCAT.
What is also revealing is that Justice Griffiths acknowledged in court that the Law Society had waited for our annual renewal application before acting. Yet the judgment never questioned why, or what the lawful basis was for that approach when the referral engaged the Chapter 5 framework. Nor did the judgment ask: what happened to the three referrals? What are their outcomes? There is no finality. And without finality, these allegations can be repeated and repurposed, which is precisely what we allege occurred.
They Used Chapter 3 - Not Chapter 5
The Legal Profession Uniform Law contains Chapter 5 specifically for this situation: proper investigation, tested allegations, independent determination by NCAT. It exists so a lawyer cannot lose their livelihood on unproven allegations.
The Law Society chose not to use it. Instead, they used Chapter 3, the practising certificate renewal pathway, which requires none of those protections. No independent tribunal. No tested evidence. No requirement to prove anything.
Senior Counsel Ms Kate Morgan, for the Law Society, effectively stated in court that Chapter 5 was not used because of 'cost-effectiveness'.
Cost-effectiveness. That is what the Law Society weighed our careers against, a practice built over more than 12 years, against all odds and without support; my legal journey since 2008; a family income I built while supporting my husband through his studies because I believed, genuinely believed, in the integrity of the legal profession and what it stood for. All of it. Weighed against the cost of simply following the process the law actually requires.
That statement does not appear in the judgment of 4 February 2026. But it was said. In court. In submissions.
Lawyers Weekly - Ad Hominem, Marital Status Obsession, and a Question They Will Not Answer
Lawyers Weekly has published three articles about our matter, all written by the same journalist, Ms Naomi Neilson, described as their senior court reporter.
In July 2023, following the Court of Appeal referral, Lawyers Weekly published an article framing our matter around "extraordinary allegations" and "serious concern," reporting the referral to the OLSC as though findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct were the inevitable outcome.
In November 2023, a second article was headlined around us facing disciplinary action for "baseless" claims. The clear implication across both articles: an investigation was coming. Findings were coming.
Then on 4 February 2026, the same day Justice Griffiths' judgment was published, Lawyers Weekly ran their third article. Headline: "Married solicitor couple in strife pushes new sensational claims." Our faces plastered together, despite the fact that we had two entirely separate proceedings. Our twelve grounds of legal argument, raising statutory construction, jurisdictional error, denial of procedural fairness, and legal unreasonableness, dismissed in a headline as "new sensational claims."
Not once across three articles did Ms Neilson or Lawyers Weekly ask the question their own 2023 reporting demands:
What happened to the investigation?
What happened to the findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct?
Lawyers Weekly reports every day on NCAT disciplinary outcomes, misconduct findings, and tribunal determinations. They know exactly what a finding looks like. They know exactly what an investigation produces. They know there are none here. And yet, silence on that question.
Compare this to Lawyers Weekly's coverage of lawyers who have actually been found guilty following proper NCAT proceedings with tested evidence and tribunal determinations. Those articles carry no photographs of the lawyers concerned, no references to their marital status, no emotionally charged language. They report the finding, the process, and the outcome, because there is a finding, a process, and an outcome to report.
In our matter there is none of that. No finding. No process. No outcome from any independent tribunal. And yet the coverage of our matter is the more sensationalised of the two. That contrast is not coincidental. That is a choice.
Lawyers Weekly presents itself as objective legal affairs journalism. But Lawyers Weekly is a corporate media outlet with commercial relationships with large corporate law firms, among them Piper Alderman and DLA Piper, firms we allege have directly implicated themselves in my civil proceedings.
Reports have been made on Piper Alderman to protect the public and the legal profession. DLA Piper, through Senior Counsel Mr McInerney instructed by DLA Piper Partner Mr James Berg, is alleged to have tampered with court documents, conduct capable of constituting a criminal offence under the Crimes Act.
It is also on the record that before any hearing on the notices of motion in the District Court, Mr McInerney made submissions targeting my professional standing as a lawyer, stating before any adjudication that I had 'undone' myself as a legal practitioner. This came from a Senior Counsel who had reframed his own client's written appeal advice, a 2016 advice that expressly referred to the existence of a contract, into a new narrative in 2023, of "secondary evidence of a contract," contrary to what his own client had stated in writing and cannot produce to this day.
Those commercial relationships, with firms alleged to have a vested interest against us, are not disclosed in any Lawyers Weekly article about our matter.
We will not insult the intelligence of the Australian public or the legal community. They are more than capable of drawing their own conclusions, and in an era of growing and justified distrust in journalism, the conduct of Lawyers Weekly in our matter speaks for itself.
We invite Lawyers Weekly to answer the questions their own 2023 articles raised:
where are the findings?
What happened to the NSW Court of Appeal referrals?
What are the outcomes of those referrals raising conduct issues?
Were there any court or tribunal processes and determinations?
Lawyers Weekly told the public in its article that an investigation was coming. The public deserves to know what it produced, if anything.
The 4 Feb 2026 Judgment of Griffiths
We brought judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court raising twelve grounds of illegality. Not to review the merits, to determine whether the legal process was lawful at all. We will be appealing this judgment.
Justice Griffiths AJ dismissed all twelve grounds on 4 February 2026.
The judgment spent pages reproducing adverse allegations against us, never adjudicated, never tested, never established, giving them the permanence of a published judicial instrument without determining their legal status.
The judgment reformulated our case in the catchwords as whether the Law Society was "entitled to make findings of misconduct under Ch 3 instead of Ch 5." That was never our case.
The judge himself acknowledged from the outset of Mr Bryl's case, there were no misconduct findings, stating in open court, to Artem, effectively stating as if he should be grateful: "at least you didn't have misconduct." Yet that mischaracterisation is now the published framing of our twelve grounds.
The judgment introduced s 97 of the Uniform Law as a basis to justify a pathway directed by the OLSC to Chapter 3. Neither party argued s 97. It appeared for the first time in the judgment. We had no opportunity to address it. This is capable of constituting a denial of natural justice.
At the hearing, when Senior Counsel Ms Morgan handed up documents for the first time, including Legal Services Commissioner correspondence and purported Council meeting minutes never previously disclosed, I objected. The judge accepted those materials without scrutiny. These documents handed up in court for the first time were materially relied upon in the judgment.
At a prior directions hearing, the Law Society's counsel Ms Dunlop was asked directly whether decisions existed for each adverse pre-decision action taken against us. She confirmed "yes". Those decisions were never produced. The judgment held it was not for the court to address them at all.
Under the Uniform Law, we were entitled to s 464 certificates, formal notices of appealable decisions, for every action taken against us. We received none. Without them, we had no appeal pathway. And when we brought judicial review raising their lawfulness, the judgment declined to examine them.
We allege, that is not supervisory jurisdiction. That is the abandonment of it.
The judgment did not engage with:
The Griswold Memorandum dated 23 May 2025 showing the Decision was authored by her before the purported Council meeting that was supposed to make it.
The document save date of 21 and 22 May 2025 on a Decision issued 30 May 2025, from a meeting purportedly held 29 May 2025
The incomplete referral materials, the referral orders directed all court documents including transcripts be provided; they were not
Whether we had any opportunity to respond to materials handed up at the hearing.
What was produced, we allege, is not a judicial review. It was the respondents' case transposed into judgment form.
The Deeper Danger: Using the Law to Defeat the Law - An Injustice to One Becomes an Injustice to All
Thomas More wrote in Utopia of a ruler who sought not a judge who would uphold the law, but one who knew the law well enough to defeat it. Defeat justice.
"The king wanted a judge who knew the law well enough to defeat it."
What we allege is precisely that. Not ignorance. Not oversight. The sophisticated use of legal knowledge and institutional position to find pathways that technically exist within the statute while defeating every protection the statute was designed to provide.
Chapter 5 existed. They chose Chapter 3, because that required them to prove a case against us, and they did not want us to present exculpatory evidence. The court transcript and documents would prove the judgments allegedly recorded false records. It is on the surface.
The referral required complete materials. They proceeded without the court transcripts, the very documents containing exculpatory evidence. They did not make any effort to comply with the referral of papers orders.
Procedural fairness required disclosure. They compiled material against us for months without telling us, shifting narratives, never responding to our requests for particulars or clarification of jurisdiction and lawful process. They recorded piles of allegations in their decisions which substantially were not even put to us, including all of their attachments.
And when a judgment in judicial review proceedings instead formalised it as precedent, the law was not upheld. We alleged, it was defeated by those who knew it best.
The Multifaceted Roles of Ms Valerie Griswold
Ms Griswold, Legal Director of the Law Society, with Ms Nadya Haddad, Deputy Director, conducted the process against us. Ms Griswold's own evidence provided that she authored the Decision, the resolutions, the risk assessment, and the manager appointment, before the purported Council meeting that was supposed to make those decisions.
Both her and Ms Haddad, the very people who conducted the internal undisclosed Law Society process for almost a year, then served defamation concerns notices on us when we commenced judicial review against their decisions.
Ms Griswold swore the Law Society's affidavit as their witness. And 2-3 days before the final hearing, surprised us with a suppression and non-publication application to suppress her own court documents in proceedings in which she is that witness.
Ms Griswold was: the Conductor. Accuser. Author. Decision-maker. Defamation notice server. Witness. Suppressor of her own evidence.
That is, what we allege, not a regulator acting in good faith.
What They Did When We Spoke Out
When I published evidence that I was a victim of my affidavit and exhibit documents being allegedly tampered with by DLA Piper, Mr McInerney and Ms Lui from New Chambers, and revealed that Justices Leeming and Kirk had direct evidence before them but the judgment recorded there was no evidence, the Law Society did not investigate, did not refer the matter to authorities under s 465 of the Uniform Law.
Instead, they used video of unrelated materials against us for an improper purpose, as a basis to apply for suppression orders in our judicial review proceedings. The Law Society sought permanent suppression of its own administrative decisions and purported process: Ms Griswold's affidavit exhibit, a memo and its 200+ page attachments.
The Attorney General and "alleged prior conduct" That Don't Exist in the Law
In October 2024, the Attorney General's office responded to our correspondence, acknowledging that a reference to "misconduct" was a "typographical error" and should be read as "alleged prior conduct."
That was the first time that phrase had ever been used in our matter.
We wrote back on 4 November 2024 seeking substantiation. No response has ever come.
Here is the legal reality: the Uniform Law recognises two and only two categories of conduct breaches:
Unsatisfactory professional conduct; and
Professional misconduct
That is it.
"Alleged prior conduct" and "alleged prior misconduct" are not statutory terms. They do not exist in the legislation. The responsible minister is alleged to have invented them. The Law Society adopted them. They were used against us in the Decision. And neither party can point to the provision of the Uniform Law they correspond to, because there is none.
There is a petition calling for the Attorney General's accountability in this matter. You are welcome to sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/call-for-nsw-attorney-general-daley-mp-mcdermott-to-resign-for-condoning-unlawful-acts
Why This Matters - For Every Person Reading This
This is not only about lawyers. This is about whether every Australian is safe.
If a regulator can bypass legal protections under the Law, designed specifically to prevent punishment without proof, choosing a cheaper pathway with no accountability, then those protections exist only on paper. And if a judgment can then formalise that as precedent, the paper means nothing.
The Uniform Law exists because Parliament understood that a lawyer's livelihood must never be taken on unproven allegations. This is not just in the legal profession, this is embedded in the rule of law, what makes a country democratic.
Every allegation pursued by legal regulators, or anyone who holds authority over someone's livelihood, must be tested. An independent tribunal or court must determine it to the civil standard of proof. The judgment of 4 February 2026 has made that framework of safeguards, due process, and natural justice optional.
Every lawyer in NSW is now subject to that precedent. And every person who deals with the Law Society, as a complainant, a client, anyone from the public, is subject to a regulator with powers that a judgment has now said are unfettered by the very framework Parliament created.
Ask yourself: if this can happen to two lawyers who did nothing but seek justice, who is safe?
Ask yourself, especially lawyers: can the actions and decisions of the Law Society be done by a court of law or tribunal? If no court or tribunal can do such acts, is the Law Society above the law and exempt from the administration of justice?
We Are Not Here to Fix the System. We Are Here to Illuminate It
We have been raising these alarms for more than ten years, through ICAC, the Attorney General, the Royal Banking Commission, ASIC, the OLSC, the Premier, and more. The full record of our public interest disclosures and notices spans a decade and is publicly available.
We are two lawyers who sought justice as citizens, raised alarms about Credit Corp and its lawyers' conduct harming people across Australia, and were subjected to what we allege is a coordinated effort to silence us using the very machinery meant to protect us all.
False records made using legal instruments are a form of 'paper violence'. They destroy careers, finances, health, and families, without a single punch thrown. Most victims never have the knowledge, the resources, or the stamina to fight back.
Yet here we are, speaking up, standing up against those who act as if they are above the law, have no accountability, and hide behind titles and power.
We cannot and will not stop speaking up because we know the damage of not speaking up is worse than speaking up.
We should never have been in this position because we have laws in place, and we are doing our best to ensure no one else is subjected to what happened to us.
We have reported to the NSW Premier Chris Minns and more. We have written to the Attorney General. Everything is documented, published, and on the public record, because there are allegedly false records being made under our names and our firm's name, and the public deserves to know.
There are people in this system who believe the law bows to them.
It does not.
"The selective application of the law is not justice. It is the weaponisation of justice against the very people it was built to protect." - Marie Odtojan
We are still here. Still speaking. We will not stop, for ourselves, for every lawyer who comes after us, and for every person this machinery has been turned against without proof, without process, and without recourse.
If this injustice resonates with you, share it. Ask the questions. Sign the petition.
What does this mean for our democracy? For the rule of law? For human rights? Is it safe to access the courts in this country when a lawyer who simply filed a summons seeking leave to appeal in relation to interlocutory notice of motion orders before the highest court in NSW can allegedly be targeted, have false records made in judgments without any hearing, and be stripped of her and her advocate's livelihood on the basis of adverse judicial commentaries, none of which were ever the subject of a hearing, tested evidence, or a finding?
Demand the answers. Because we each carry a social obligation not to allow injustice to perpetuate.
"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept." - Lieutenant General David Morrison AO, Chief of the Army, 2013
All claims are supported by evidence on the public record. Full legal analysis, chronology, and public interest disclosures: odtojanbryllawyers.com.au/obl-blog Video evidence and disclosures on our YouTube channel.
For the full background on Odtojan v Ford, Glynn & Condon SC: The Undocumented Truth of Odtojan v Ford, Glynn and Condon SC
Disclaimer: This article reflects allegations, concerns, opinions, lived experiences, and observations held by the author based on the evidence, materials, and proceedings presently available to them. The matters discussed remain subject to ongoing appellate and related proceedings. Nothing in this article is intended to assert the existence of findings beyond those formally determined by a court or tribunal.
Members of the public, media, and investigative reporters are welcome to review materials which have been made publicly accessible through the blogs provided on this site, including court documents, reports, publicly available judgments, and other source materials referred to throughout these proceedings, as well as obtaining court transcripts where available.
Readers are encouraged to independently compare court transcripts, judgments, correspondence, and related materials, and draw their own conclusions from the records and evidence available.
Marie Odtojan Artem Bryl Law Society NSW no findings.
Comments