Q&A: Two Innocent Lawyers Stripped of Livelihood by NSW Legal Regulators. No Due Process. No Breaches. Nothing Proven - A Targeted Act To Silence & Erase Witnesses, Victims & Whistleblowers.
- Odtojan Bryl Lawyers
- Sep 21
- 8 min read
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. For those wondering what the NSW legal regulators did to lawyers, Marie Odtojan & Artem Bryl and their law firm, this image speaks volumes. Two innocent lawyers unlawfully stripped of their livelihoods without due process by the NSW legal regulators.
Here’s a Q&A answered directly by the lawyers.
Q: Did you have any prior adverse records or convictions? What did you breach?
A: No. Neither of us had any prior adverse records, nor did we breach any professional obligations.
Q: Did your law firm, Odtojan Bryl Lawyers, breach any laws, professional rules, or regulatory obligations concerning your 2024/2025 renewal applications?
A: No. Our firm had no adverse findings, no client complaints, no trust account issues, and no breaches of any kind that would affect our renewal applications or call into question our fitness to practise and operate.
We were in good standing, fully compliant and operational every year since the firm’s inception.
The firm was forced to cease operations not because of misconduct or any breaches by the firm or Principal, but because the Principal, Marie Odtojan, was unlawfully refused her practising certificate by the Law Society of NSW Council and PSD. On 30 May 2025, they had issued a view of unfitness decisions with no lawful foundation.
Our firm was collateral damage in a coordinated act of retaliation.
Q: Were there any disciplinary actions taken against you, as sensationalised by Lawyers Weekly?
A: No. There were no disciplinary actions, no NSW Civi; and Administrative Tribunal proceedings, no formal findings of any kind.
Q: Were there any findings of professional misconduct (PM) or unsatisfactory professional conduct (UPC), as Lawyers Weekly sensationally claimed would occur?
A: No. None whatsoever. There were no disciplinary proceedings undertaken against either of us. They did not initiate any proceedings in NCAT.
Q: How were you rendered “unfit”?
A: On 30 May 2025, we received an email attaching a Section 45 “unfitness” document from the Law Society.
It came days after we released a video exposing what the Law Society's PSD and Council had done to us, how our practising certificates had been interfered with, our names erased from the solicitor registry, and that we were being targeted including our firm. As stated in the time stamped video on 17 May 2025, it was a "targeted discriminatory hate crime in progress."
The Law Society’s 20-page decision was not based on legal findings. It was filled with internal grievances and complaints, and based on that they to justify their “views” of unfitness. They made themselves the complainant/accusers and judges.
They omitted all of the serious notices and correspondence we sent them over the prior year, raising concerns about their unlawful conduct, among other material facts and information.
Q: So why were you refused your practising certificates?
A: Legally, we don’t know, because there was no lawful basis or due process.
No findings. No hearings. No opportunity to respond. Our extensive correspondences were ignored, and all issues we raised including requests for clarificaiotn, jurisdiciotn, process and even request for acknowledgement of our payments for renewal applications which they received were all ignored and never answered to date.
Q: Do you accept the view of unfitness decisions?
A: No. We never have.
From our first letter in August 2024, we made clear that their actions were unlawful.
They ignored us and pressed ahead with what they called a “view,” a manufactured narrative to erase us without any lawful determination. We never accepted it.
Q: What’s your belief on why they rendered you unfit?
A:
For acting lawfully.
For making reports.
For accessing the courts, filing a tort claim against Nicholas Ford, Thomas Glynn, and Miles Condon SC.
Rather than addressing the substance of our claims, those we reported were protected. The judges issued false records at an interlocutory leave-to-appeal application hearings, records that were never tested, never based on evidence, and completely contradicted court files and transcripts and what transpired at those interlocutory application hearings.
From the moment the NSW Court of Appeal justices Leemng, Kirk, Basten and White made false records and made referrals base don false premises, our livelihoods were targeted.
Lawyers Weekly sensationalised that referral, amplifying it with unfounded speculation.
The article and judgment were full of character attacks based on false premises.
Artem, who advocated during those short hearings, became a target.
Justices Leeming, Kirk, Basten and White recorded evidence and representations on behalf of the three defendants who were not in court and gave no evidence. Let that sink in. The evidence of the justices fraudulent recordings are the published judgments which have misled the legal community, authorities and the public at large. these judgments are contrary to the court transcripts and what transpired in court and court documents.
We were both witnesses and victims of serious improprieties, including conduct that constituted indictable offences. We knew too much.
It was either us or them. Both could not remain in the profession.
For more inform in relation to this matter see public interest posts:
The Undocumented Truth of Odtojan v Ford Glynn and Condon SC Tort Claim
House of Cards: Lies embedded within the legal system
Public Notice: Call for Criminal investigations
Q: What process was followed to determine you were unfit?
A: No process that complied with the Uniform Law.
We were subjected to an undisclosed internal process led by Law Society's PSD Director Valerie Griswold and Deputy Director Nadya Haddad.
From their very first letter in July 2024, they had already taken adverse action without notice, lawful basis, or process.
The Law Society PSD and Council including. theLegal Services Commissioner ignored our notices to them of unlawful corrupt conduct and expressing our grave concerns of the adverse actions done to us without due process affecting our rights and interest.
See the following:
Our letter to the Law Society PSD, Council and OLSC in August 2024 which had been ignored and never answered to date.
Public Posts:
By the time we received their “decision” in May 2025, we had already been erased from the public register. Our solicitors’ data had been deleted.
Q: But wasn’t there a referral from the NSW Court of Appeal?
A: Yes. The OLSC purportedly referred the matter to the Law Society.
But we were never notified or contacted by the OLSC in relation to such referrals concerning the three NSW Court of Appeal interlocutory leave-to-appeal proceedings.
Q: What was the outcome of that referral?
A: No outcome. The referrals simply disappeared. Yet judicial commentary, not evidence, was quoted to justify a fabricated “view” of unfitness.
There was no investigation.
No review of the voluminous court documents referred to the Law Society PSD/Council.
No engagement with us at all. No questions about any documents/evidence.
Q: What about the “unfitness” record on the OLSC public disciplinary register?
A: It is a false record with no lawful foundation. There were no proven case of unfitness by NCAT.
These records were created to discredit us, destroy our careers, dismantle our firm, and mislead the public.
It contains no reasons, because there were none. It is an unlawful and fraudulent record.
No breach. No non-disclosure. No findings. No Tribunal disciplinary proceedings or determination. Nothing proven
Just a fabricated “view” of the Law Society’s PSD and Council, recorded under false premises to discredit, defame and defraud of our lawful right to practise law.
If they published the actual reasons, based solely on judicial commentary from a leave-to-appeal interlocutory hearing, the public and the legal community would recognise it unlawful.
So they keep it vague and we alleged an orchestrated predetermined outcome to align with Lawyers Weekly sensationalised publication of us "to be investigated" for PM and UPC and leave it. forth public any those who read their article that hose disciplinary records was a result of a findings of such.
It was created to destroy our firm, damage our reputations, and mislead the legal community, authorities and the public.
Q: What did you witness?
A:
– False records on legal documents.
– Judgments that misrepresented the facts and evidence.
– A systemic cover-up, protecting:
• Judges Leeming, Kirk, Basten, and White
• Firms like Piper Alderman and Certus Partners
• Individuals like Florian Ammer, Sebastian Hartford Davis, Ford, Glynn, and Condon SC
• Those we reported from 2016.
And the regulators themselves in their acts. of concealing and assisting those we reported and.or involved.
These actions date back to 2016.
Q: Are these isolated incidents?
A: No.
This is a systemic failure of the NSW legal regulators.
What happened to us could happen to anyone, a lawyer, client, or whistleblower. Because the legal regulators deal directly with lawyers and the public who may contact them and/or use their services i.e. where regulatory functions are exercised such in complaints process, receiving reports of allegations of misconduct or suspected offences by legal practitioners.
Q: What are you doing now?
A:
We are challenging the legality of the decisions in the Supreme Court of NSW. The hearings are listed on:
26 November 2025 (Bryl v Law Society of NSW & Council of the LSNSW)
27 November 2025 (Odtojan v Law Society of NSW & Council of the LSNSW).
We are documenting everything.
We’ve called on those responsible to self-report and remove themselves from office because every day they remain, they pose a danger to the public and all NSW lawyers. They cannot act independently once they commit unlawful acts as they have compromised their integrity, operating with self-interest and self-preservation.
We created Odtojan Bryl Justice Project, petitions, GoFundMe & called for action, investigation, and removal of those responsible & reform.
We continue to speak up, not just for ourselves, but to protect the public, the legal profession, and the integrity of the legal system.
Q: What have the Law Society’s actions been since issuing their decisions?
A:
They doubled down on their unlawful actions.
They made further false records to justify the unfitness label.
At the first court date in July 2025, they refused to acknowledge the summons, acted as if the law and rules didn’t apply to the Law Society. Mr Clifford Flax represented that he was independent from the Law Society when a quick search of his name revealed he was the senior litigator at PSD under Ms Griswold and Ms Haddad. Mr Flax made theatrics at the bar tale before the Registrar acting confused that he though the first listing before the court was about notice of motion and as if Ms Odtojan did not speak english despite all day her proposing to him basic timetable to him which he refused and had the parties waited half the day to be finally heard. Mr Flax conceded to the timetable for Law Society. to respond to the summons.
They filed a response claiming that. the entire Chapter 5 of the Uniform was not required.
Shortly after serving our Supreme Court summons, Ms Griswold and Ms Haddad issued threats, including over 100 pages of demands: delete our public interest content, permanently delete evidence, and pay them.
They showed their intent to launch four court proceedings in retaliation, as collateral attack on our current Supreme Court proceedings.
Oversaw the appointment of a manager to harass us during critical Supreme Court evidence deadlines, after months of silence.
For more info, 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