The Undocumented Truth in Odtojan v Ford, Glynn & Condon SC: Three Civil Tort Damages Cases in 2023 — The Notice of Motion Reveals the Intent.
- Odtojan Bryl Lawyers
- 5 days ago
- 29 min read
Updated: 4 hours ago
Summary
A Gross Breach of Legal, Fiduciary, and Contractual Obligations: No Client Should Ever Face This
The Tort Case Against Mr Ford, Mr Glynn and Mr Condon SC, Who Never Appeared in Court
Pleadings Not Closed. No Defence File. Yet, Defendants Demanded Plaintiff File All Evidence
The Defendants' and Their Lawyers' Knowledge of Falsehoods on Court Judgments
What Judge Norton did in the District Court Interlocutory Hearing
The NSW Court of Appeal: A Judgment Asserting Claims are Without Basis
The Unspoken System They Built
A Gross Breach of Legal, Fiduciary, and Contractual Obligations: No Client Should Ever Face This
With the ethical, fiduciary, and legal obligations that lawyers owe to their clients, no person should ever have been placed in Ms Odtojan’s position, where her three former legal representatives engaged in conduct that included tampering with affidavit evidence, pursuing a case contrary to her instructions, misleading both the court and their client, and creating false records in court documents, legal advice, and even account statements, including trust account records.
After the initial false record in the Local Court, the conduct of the three defendant lawyers revealed how they treated their client, an Asian woman of colour, as if she were subhuman. They not only carried out their acts but then began portraying her and her firm as if they were the lawyers responsible, when in fact she was the client (not in the capacity of a lawyer in her cases). After that, they uniformly ignored her.
Mr Glynn disappeared after the final hearing and was never seen again, yet remained on the record as Ms Odtojan's solicitor. Mr Ford never acknowledged Mr Glynn’s role, despite having insisted that Ms Odtojan retain him as solicitor on the case. After Mr Glynn’s disappearance, Mr Ford fabricated his account statements, reframing them to depict his client as the instructing solicitor rather than Mr Glynn. He recorded false entries in his accounts, even naming Odtojan Bryl Lawyers ("OBL")as his instructing solicitors and fabricating cheque payments that were never made from OBL.
Mr Ford ignored the trust payments that were recorded from Mr Glynn’s trust accounts and omitted any reference to Mr Glynn’s existence in his documents and account statements. He then pressed his client to retain Mr Condon SC for appeal advice. Mr Condon withheld advice until the final day of the 28-day appeal period. In the conference, he showed disrespect, used profanity, and even asked about Ms Odtojan's law firm’s trust account funds. He remarked that if she pursued an appeal, the matter could be referred to the Law Society, a vague but threatening comment and warning to her.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. They acted as though their status and their whiteness placed them beyond accountability.
After all of this, all three lawyers ignored their client, Ms Odtojan. That silence and abandonment have now persisted for nearly ten years, with the assistance of others within the legal profession who concealed and perpetuated their unlawful and fraudulent acts against their client.
These acts are alleged to be part of a coordinated effort carried out over the years by individuals in positions of authority and power. The effect has been to frame Ms Odtojan by exploiting her professional status as a solicitor, and to create records against her and her firm, Odtojan Bryl Lawyers ("OBL"), even though neither Ms Odtojan nor OBL ever acted in a professional capacity or filed a notice of appearance in any of her personal court cases.
All of this traces back to Odtojan v Credit Corp Services Pty Limited, where Credit Corp pleaded the existence of a contract that it never proved.
Every case that stemmed from the original proceedings was brought to correct the wrongs and to address what were alleged to be fraud and misconduct.
The Tort Case Against Mr Ford, Mr Glynn and Mr Condon SC, Who Never Appeared in Court
Mr Ford, Mr Condon SC and Mr Glynn's entitlement and contempt toward their client were further demonstrated in Ms Odtojan (Plaintiff )'s tort claim against them. The three defendant lawyers never appeared in court, behaving as if they were above the court process itself.
Judicial registrar and judges engaged with the matter in their absence in ways that operated to the defendants’ benefit, creating the impression that they were beyond accountability. Never asking where the defendants are, nor recording that they were not present. at the court hearings.
The effect of this was to give them a green light while leaving the Plaintiff, their former client, threatened and intimidated for no other reason than that she sought to exercise her rights to access the courts, to access justice.
In Ms Odtojan’s 2022-2023 civil tort claim against each of them was portrayed in the interlocutory NSW Court decisions in 2023 as if, by their professional status, they could not have engaged in wrongdoing. The contemporaneous court documents and transcripts tell a very different story, one that directly contradicts the narrative recorded in the published NSW Court of Appeal, leave (permission) to appeal, (“NSWCA”) and NSW District Court (interlocutory, “NSWDC”) decisions in 2023.
The unpublished District Court interlocutory decision is itself inconsistent with the NSWCA published decisions delivered by Justices Leeming and Kirk (in the Condon SC case) and by Justices Basten and White (in the Ford and Glynn cases).
These NSWCA justices made records in their published interlocutory decisions in Odtojan v Ford, Glynn and Condon SC (tort damages claims), attributing evidence and representations to the defendants, even though the defendants never attended the court and gave no such evidence.
This is a public interest disclosure: false records in judgments constitute administration of justice offences, and the judges involved have a positive duty to self-report their conduct.
As this case demonstrates, their published judgments have circulated these falsehoods, which now appear in other legal instruments and official documents.
Obstruction of Justice in Action by Officers of the Court: How a Plaintiff Was Prevented from Proceeding to a Final Hearing
This is a public interest case exposing how coordinated actions within the NSW civil courts, involving Judicial Registrar James Howard, NSW District Court Judge Sharron Norton, NSW District Court Judge Anne Ainslie-Wallace, and the four NSW Court of Appeal justices above-mentioned, prevented the Plaintiff’s case (as the former client of the defendants) from ever reaching a final hearing.
These actions, undertaken by design, obstructed the Plaintiff from resolving her case and denied her access to the administration of justice. The four justices of the NSWCA went further still: they used the leave to appeal hearing to target Ms Odtojan’s career, marriage, family, her partner’s career, livelihood, and reputation by referring both her and Mr Bryl to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner ("OLSC"), stating that Ms Odtojan’s three claims had “no basis.”
In doing so, the justices effectively eliminated and disregarded the evidence of witnesses and victims, and instead sought to discredit and defame them in their published judgments, deflecting attention away from the real issues before the court, which related to alleged serious misconduct and potential offences under the Crimes Act.
In fact, Justices Leeming and Kirk had themselves acknowledged on record in court that Ms Odtojan and Mr Bryl were witnesses to the all-important conference (conducted by Mr Miles Condon SC and Mr Nicolas Ford at New Chambers). Yet they did not record this in their judgments. Instead, they declared there was “no basis,” thereby disregarding the evidence of witnesses and victims, evidence that could only properly be tested at a final hearing.
The Plaintiff made multiple attempts to resolve these issues outside court, but was uniformly ignored by the three defendants. The statute of limitations compelled the Plaintiff to file a tort claim to preserve her legal rights.
The judicial and court officers involved did not adhere to their duties to uphold the administration of justice. Instead, they attacked the credibility and professional standing of the Plaintiff, herself a legal practitioner, but also a witness and victim. Her partner, Mr Artem Bryl (also a witness), was similarly targeted for advocating on her behalf during the NSWCA leave to appeal hearing, a limited procedural hearing usually conducted by papers in chambers, where, if there is a hearing, each party is given only about 20 minutes to address their grounds for leave arguments.
During that hearing, Mr Bryl referred directly to court documents, evidence, and the defendants’ representations and written advice. Nevertheless, the justices recorded that there was “no basis”, an assertion contradicted by the record, including transcripts and filed documents. Relying on that false premise, the justices referred both the Plaintiff and Mr Bryl, as solicitors, to the OLSC. They were wrongfully transformed into subjects of disciplinary referral. The justices thereby eliminated witnesses and evidence.
The work of lawyers, judges, and court officers may one day be subject to public and historical scrutiny. That day has come.
This account is presented in the public interest. It details how Senior Counsel Mr Miles Condon SC (New Chambers), barrister Mr Nicolas Ford (Coram Chambers), and solicitor Mr Thomas Glynn (Glynns Lawyers), assisted by their legal representatives and judicial officers of the court, acted in ways that prevented their former client’s (the Plaintiff’s) tort damages cases against them from ever reaching a final hearing.
In 2022, these three defendants had already ignored their client for six years. They refused to produce or identify the very contract relied upon in their written appeal advice, and in the final Local Court hearing in 2016, Mr Ford and Mr Glynn represented at the bar table that their client had received such a contract. That claim was unsubstantiated; their client gave no such evidence.
In 2016, they advised their client to file a Supreme Court appeal summons on the final day of the 28-day timeframe, pleading and relying upon a “contract” they themselves had referred to in their written advice. Yet they refused, then and ever since, to produce or identify this contract.
That advice, to rely upon a contract they could not produce or identify, effectively directed their client to mislead the Supreme Court of NSW. Mr Condon SC and Mr Ford even indicated their intention to conduct the client’s Supreme Court proceedings on that very basis.
To this day, nearly 10 years later, none of the three defendants has produced or identified the contract on which their written advice was based. This raises a serious question: if Mr Condon SC and Mr Ford intended to run this Supreme Court appeal in September 2016, for which they quoted around $50,000 in legal costs, what exactly were they intending to present to the Court as evidence and as the legal foundation of the appeal?
Their advice relied on an “unsigned written contract” that they have never produced, never identified, and still cannot point to after almost a decade.
The Plaintiff's Material Facts, Issues, and supporting Law and Case Authorities Omitted in Judgments by Judicial Officers
The above serious issues, among others, were raised in Ms Odtojan’s 2023 tort claim proceedings but do not appear in either the District Court or the NSW Court of Appeal judgments. Instead, the NSWCA recorded there was “no basis”, even though:
The procedural leave to appeal hearings do not examine pleadings or determine evidence, questions of law, fact, or credit. Those are matters for a final hearing.
The District Court, in the interlocutory stage, did not dismiss the cases under UCPR 13.4 as baseless, even though the three defendants had sought dismissal on that very ground and were unsuccessful. No orders were made under that rule.
When the Plaintiff received the published NSWCA judgments in 2023 declaring her tort claims had “no basis,” it was by ambush. The Justices never examined the Plaintiff’s extensive pleadings, approximately 45 pages across the statements of claim against Mr Ford and Mr Glynn, and 24 pages against Mr Condon SC Nor did they determine evidence, as this was not that type of hearing but a limited procedural one confined to leave to appeal grounds.
Instead, the judgments recorded facts, representations, and evidence in favour of the defendants that were neither supported by any material nor raised or uttered during the hearing. Further, the defendants were not present at the hearing and gave no evidence.
What transpired was contrary to the proper administration of justice. The Justices involved were notified and were aware of the nature of the false records they had made in the published 2023 judgments.
The moment the Justices created false narratives and records in their published judgments, they implicated themselves. From that point forward, they had a vested interest in targeting and discrediting Ms Odtojan and Mr Bryl. Their referrals to the OLSC cannot be regarded as impartial acts, but as steps that shielded them from scrutiny for their own alleged administration of justice offences. Having so implicated themselves, they could never act as fair-minded decision-makers.
Worse still, the judgments ridiculed Ms Odtojan’s pleaded cause of action for unlawful civil conspiracy, even as the NSWCA Justices themselves became entangled in circumstances that gave rise to an appearance of such a conspiracy. By recording alleged false narratives in favour of the defendants, the judgments effectively concealed the defendants’ conduct and prevented Ms Odtojan’s tort claims from ever being finally determined, thereby obstructing justice, after she had already been ignored by the three defendants for some seven years.
The intent of their referral to the OLSC was plain: to target the livelihood and careers of Ms Odtojan and Mr Bryl, together with their family, their business and law firm, and their professional reputation, to destroy their ability to practise law.
The judgments introduced alleged false narratives, not presented or uttered during the hearing, and these were then recycled into regulatory action. Such conduct undermines confidence in the rule of law and raises grave questions about impartiality, fairness, and the proper administration of justice.
The dangers of false judicial records are starkly illustrated in this case. The Lawyers Weekly sensationalised and spread those falsehoods, despite being notified of the issues, and omitted to disclose the true context (a matter for a separate post). Those false records from the judgments were then recycled into another legal instrument: the Section 45 Decisions, which was materially relied to form an unproven view of two innocent lawyers “unfit” to hold a practising certificate without due process, without any findings of breach of law, conduct, or ethics, and which forced the closure of their law firm.
The Interlocutory Motion: A Legal Weapon to Suppress and Bury a Case - The Scattergun Orders as Obstruction
The interlocutory Notice of Motion (see above photos) was filed by DLA Piper partner Mr James Berg, represented by Mr Anthony McInerney SC of New Chambers, the very same chambers as Mr Miles Condon SC.
A similar motion was filed by the other two defendants, Mr Ford and Mr Glynn, through their respective legal representatives.
Across all District Court and Court of Appeal proceedings, the three defendants did not file any defence, and neither appeared at any court hearings. They avoided engaging with the facts or issues raised. Instead, they resorted to notices of motion, seeking to strike out the Plaintiff’s claims, permanently stay the proceedings, or have the case summarily dismissed
In Mr Condon SC’s motion, he went further, demanding his former client pay $150,000 before she could proceed with her claim under his proposed stay orders. An oppressive order to bar access to justice altogether.
Note: The Plaintiff only met Mr Condon SC once in 2016, in his chambers (New Chambers), for advice on a potential appeal. The meeting was arranged at the eleventh hour, at 8:00 am on the final days of the 28-day appeal period. During the conference, Mr Condon SC confirmed with Mr Ford that no contract had been produced or ventilated at the final Local Court hearing. Yet later that same evening, the Plaintiff received his written appeal advice, issued jointly with Mr Ford and Mr Glynn, which relied on the existence of a “contract.”
Mr Condon SC further advised that the issue of an “unsigned written contract” should be recorded in the summons filed in the Supreme Court for appeal. Despite being paid for his services, he has never produced or identified this contract, nor has he responded to the Plaintiff’s repeated requests for clarification.
As Senior Counsel, Mr Condon SC owed higher obligations than other legal practitioners. Yet to this day, and with the protection of judicial officers in the 2023 judgments, he has never been held accountable for, or required to substantiate, his advice and references to a contract.
Pleadings Not Closed. No Defence File. Yet, Defendants Demanded Plaintiff File All Evidence
At no point were the pleadings closed. No defence was filed by the three defendants. Yet, the defendants sought orders requiring the Plaintiff to file all evidence before any factual issues were joined and without clarity as to what was actually in dispute.
Under proper procedure, facts in issue are determined after pleadings are closed, not before. To demand evidence at the preliminary stage, while simultaneously claiming the case is “frivolous” or “without basis,” is not a legitimate legal position. It is a procedural ambush, designed to crush a civil case before it can even begin.
The Defendants’ conduct and notices of motion did not amount to genuine litigation. Rather, they were acts of procedural oppression, abuse of process, and obstruction of justice. It was the legal equivalent of an Art of War tactic, striking before the case was allowed to take shape and progress.
Yet our courts are not meant to operate by ambush. Such manoeuvres are contrary to the administration of justice. Justice requires that a plaintiff be given the opportunity to have their case heard and determined, not prematurely buried under scattergun interlocutory tactics.
Procedural fairness requires that:
All parties know the issues to be brought before the court
Decision-makers remain impartial and free from bias
Each party is given a fair hearing and a proper opportunity to be heard
None of those safeguards were respected here.
Corruption in Plain Sight: Inside the NSW Civil Courts
No lawyer bound by legal and ethical duties should act in this way. Yet all three defendants, each legally represented, two with Senior Counsel and one with a barrister, filed these Notices of Motion with confidence. They did so without fear of scrutiny from the bench. And indeed, there was none.
No questions. No challenges. No acknowledgment that the orders sought were contradictory and oppressive from the bench. The Plaintiff's objections and issues fell on deaf ears and were not recorded in judgments.
This was not the operation of a court of law. It was something entirely removed from it.
When one has witnessed corrupt conduct for over a decade, the patterns of behaviour become impossible to ignore.
a. Mr Anthony McInerney SC (New Chambers)
This is one example, among many, of the conduct of Mr Anthony McInerney SC (New Chambers) that warrants its dedicated public interest post.
During the 2023 District Court interlocutory hearing, Mr McInerney SC was recorded in the court transcript laughing when Mr Bryl raised the issue of him misleading the court regarding his client’s written appeal advice.
For the first time, in open court, Mr McInerney created a new narrative, one never previously stated by Mr Miles Condon SC, claiming that the “contract” referred to by his client in his written appeal advice was based on “secondary documents.” This assertion was unsupported by any evidence or documents. It also directly contradicted his client’s own written appeal advice, which expressly and materially described the existence of a “contract,” with no mention that it was derived from “secondary documents.”
Despite multiple objections by the Plaintiff, neither the District Court Judge nor Judicial Registrar James Howard questioned Mr McInerney about what “secondary documents” he was referring to. This material misrepresentation was not recorded in either the District Court or NSWCA judgments.
Further, Mr McInerney’s highest submission in response to the serious allegations in the Plaintiff’s tort claim was to state that his client was “Senior Counsel”, implying that it was unreasonable to make allegations against him for that reason alone. He did not address the substance of the claim, but instead launched a personal and professional attack on the Plaintiff’s standing as a legal practitioner, including written submissions asserting that the Plaintiff had “undone herself as a solicitor” by making a tort claim against Mr Condon SC.
The extent of Mr McInerney’s conduct, which is absent from the published judgments but preserved in the court transcripts, deserves a full public interest account of how a Senior Counsel operated in court with apparent protection from judicial officers.
Mr McInerney and the judicial officers involved may have believed their conduct would never come to light. But it will. It must, because the public has a right to know, especially when false records have been made in legal instruments and judgments in both the District Court and the NSW Court of Appeal.
Judges making false records in judgments is a grave matter. When they remain on the bench and in the profession, still exercising authority over the public they are sworn to serve, the danger compounds. Having once created false records, they can go on to embed those narratives into further legal instruments, with devastating consequences for the lives of those affected, as this case already demonstrates.
b. Ms Anne Horvath SC (Banco Chambers)
This is one example, among many, of the conduct of Ms Anne Horvath SC (Banco Chambers, the same chambers as Mr Sebastian Hartford Davis), that warrants its dedicated public interest post.
Ms Horvath SC represented Mr Thomas Glynn of Glynns Lawyers. In the District Court interlocutory hearing before Judge Sharron Norton, Ms Horvath SC gave evidence at the bar table that contradicted Mr McInerney SC. She vaguely stated that the “contract” her client relied upon, drawn from the same written advice given to the Plaintiff by Mr Ford and Mr Condon SC, was the “Terms and Conditions.” No evidence or documents were produced to support this claim.
Despite the Plaintiff’s objections and a direct request that Judge Norton order Ms Horvath SC to substantiate her representation and produce the relevant evidence, the Judge instead looked at the Plaintiff, dismissed her request, and deflected, moving on to other matters without requiring Ms Horvath to produce any proof.
Judge Norton raised no issue when presented with contradicting positions about the contract by two Senior Counsel and a counsel, the very contract on which the three defendant lawyers had jointly given written advice to their client, the Plaintiff. This contradiction was omitted from the judgment, which instead recorded an entirely different narrative.
In the NSWCA proceedings, Ms Horvath SC represented that her client, Mr Glynn, was “not aware” of the contract issue. This was directly rebutted by Mr Bryl, who produced Mr Glynn’s own emails acknowledging the dispute over the contract’s existence.
At the Local Court final hearing, Mr Glynn failed to address the contract with Mr Ford, despite the Plaintiff’s repeated applications over two years for notices to produce and orders compelling its production from Credit Corp/Piper Alderman. On the Plaintiff’s day in court, Mr Glynn and Mr Ford effectively hijacked her case. Instead of advancing her position
that no contract existed, they ran an entirely different case, one premised on the assumption of a contract, thereby relieving Credit Corp/Piper Alderman of its burden to prove its claim.
Judge Sharon Freund accepted representations made by Mr Ford at the bar table, unsupported by any evidence, and recorded in her judgment approximately 75 references to a contract as though it existed, was in evidence, and had been produced, when it was not.
None of these matters was recorded in the NSWCA judgment. Nor did Justices Basten and White require Ms Horvath SC to produce or identify the contract she materially relied upon and described as the “Terms and Conditions.” No evidence was ever produced to substantiate her representations. No question was asked from the bench: “What contract are you referring to, and where is it in evidence?”
A clear pattern emerges: material facts and representations made in court are excluded from the judgments, while false narratives and inaccurate accounts are inserted. This pattern is not incidental; it strikes at the integrity of the judicial record and the administration of justice.
c. Mr Bernard Lloyd (9 Wentworth Chambers)
This is one example, among many, of the conduct of Mr Bernard Lloyd (9 Wentworth Chambers) that warrants its dedicated public interest post.
In this case, the defendants’ lawyers were repeatedly speaking on behalf of each other’s clients, even when those clients were not their own. In earlier preliminary directions, Mr Lloyd spoke on behalf of all three defendants. He made representations concerning the defendants’ professional indemnity insurers, an issue the Plaintiff had raised regarding their alleged non-disclosure of this case to their respective insurers. There were no legal representatives for the insurers present in the proceedings, and the Plaintiff believed she had not been treated or acknowledged as a client.
Mr Lloyd stated on record, before the court, that these matters would be raised and addressed at the interlocutory proceedings in their notice of motion. They never were.
At the February 2023 interlocutory hearing before Judge Sharron Norton, both Ms Horvath SC and Mr Lloyd did not present their own clients’ cases. Instead, it appeared they had agreed prior that Mr Anthony McInerney SC, acting for Mr Miles Condon SC, would present their cases as well. Mr McInerney then spoke for one and a half hours, uninterrupted, giving evidence from the bar table on behalf of Mr Ford and Mr Glynn about what allegedly transpired in the Local Court in 2016. Neither his client, Mr Ford, nor Mr Glynn gave any evidence.
Mr McInerney improperly relied on the Plaintiff’s affidavit and exhibits to present his client's case. The Plaintiff herself was prevented from presenting her submissions and evidence, not just in Mr Condon SC’s motion, but in all three defendants’ motions. Let that sink in: the Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to be heard on any of the motions. Four parties, three matters before Judge Norton, yet only one was heard, for one and a half hours. Then Mr McInerney SC was given an early mark and excused to leave before the hearing concluded.
Rightfully, the Plaintiff sought to appeal Judge Norton’s interlocutory orders on the basis that no fair hearing had been conducted and key issues were not recorded in her judgment. Further, Judge Norton spoke on behalf of Mr Ford. She acknowledged that Mr Ford (together with Mr Glynn) had run an entirely different case to his client’s, where he had run a case that a contract existed and was provided to his client, whilst his client's case and evidence provided the contrary that there was no contract.
Judge Noton justified Mr Ford’s conduct, without any evidence or submission from his counsel, saying it was acceptable because “it wasn’t the material date.” There was no evidence of this assertion.
Judge Norton also disregarded that the Local Court judgment materially relied on Mr Ford’s representation at the bar table that a contract existed and had been provided to his client (a false statement), and that the costs orders, amounting to approximately $215,000, were based on that falsehood.
When the Plaintiff sought leave to appeal (after Mr Condon SC’s leave to appeal judgment), both counsel for Mr Ford and Mr Glynn expressed surprise that the Plaintiff was proceeding. In court, Mr Lloyd made a vague but threatening statement that the Plaintiff “was warned in Mr Condon SC’s case.” Registrar Riznyczok did not seek clarification of this statement. The remark carried the clear tone of a warning or intimidation by a counsel, an officer of the court.
Registrar Riznyczok went further, undermining and ridiculing Mr Bryl, even stating he did not think Mr Bryl was fit to represent the Plaintiff and declaring, “This is my court.” He opined that the Plaintiff could speak for herself, despite her having the right to be represented by an advocate, and despite Mr Bryl being a legal practitioner.
The Defendants' and Their Lawyers' Knowledge of Falsehoods on Court Judgments
All of these counsel, and the solicitors for Mr Ford, Mr Glynn, and Mr Condon SC, know what happened in the District Court and the NSWCA: that false records were made, and that the Plaintiff’s case was unlawfully dismantled by design. This was not the administration of justice; it was corruption and a coordinated cover-up of the alleged serious misconduct and improprieties by Mr Ford, Mr Glynn, and Mr Condon SC, for which they have never been required to answer or held accountable.
This is Lawlessness in the courts.
By the said lawyers' conduct, they became accessories and beneficiaries of the false records in the judgments.
Every lawyer knows they have a paramount duty to the court, and that it is contrary to their legal and ethical duties to assist a client to engage in unlawful acts or to mislead the court.
What is recorded here is only the tip of the iceberg. These counsel and their law firms were formally notified in writing of the conduct. They were aware, yet chose to assist their clients and failed to disclose or report what had occurred in court. They allowed false records to be made by the judicial officers and the registrar, which were then published and spread, misleading the public at large
What Judge Norton did in the District Court Interlocutory Hearing
District Court Judge Sharron Norton ordered, without giving reasons, that the Plaintiff file all of her evidence, without requiring a single one of the three defendants to file a defence, and without any of them appearing in court or giving evidence.
In all the preliminary hearings, no judge ever asked:
“Where are the defendants?”
“Where is their defence?”
“Where is their evidence?”
“What is the contract relied upon in the defendants’ written appeal advice and/or as represented in the Local Court hearing?”
“What is your response to the Plaintiff’s issue on…?”
Judge Norton stripped the Plaintiff’s case of all pleaded causes of action, including fraud, unlawful civil conspiracy, and intentional negligence. This was done without reasons and before the Plaintiff was heard.
The Judge ordered the Plaintiff to replead her case on a completely new blank statement of claim, erasing all prior records in the previously filed pleading. The Judge restricted the Plaintiff to plead only to “the merits of appeal advice,” which was not only outside the Plaintiff’s case, but also did not constitute any recognised legal cause of action. By doing so, the Judge reduced the Plaintiff’s case to a “hopeless case.”
When the Plaintiff asked the Judge to explain her legal basis for such orders, the Judge refused to answer and simply made the orders.
Judge Norton ensured that the Plaintiff was not heard in any of the three matters before her. Despite there being four parties and three separate proceedings, only one party’s submissions were permitted to be heard.
On the record, Judge Norton herself stated that the Plaintiff’s tort claim raised “serious criminality.” Yet, by order, she directed the Plaintiff to replead the case in a way that removed all references to that criminality. These directions were not recorded in her judgment. The Plaintiff was not permitted to take the Court through her submissions or evidence in any of the three matters. Orders were made before the Plaintiff could present her case.
Observers in the public gallery were visibly bewildered at what they were witnessing: the Plaintiff was consistently cut off, interrupted, and denied a fair hearing. Judge Norton was merciless. When the Plaintiff noted that the Judge’s orders raised “appealable points” and that an appeal would follow, the Judge continued regardless.
In the course of proceedings, Judge Norton even acknowledged that Mr Ford had run an entirely different case from that of his client. Yet she went on to justify Mr Ford’s conduct, despite him not being in court to give any evidence. This material statement was omitted from her judgment. Instead, her judgment by ambush falsely claimed that the Plaintiff was attempting to “re-litigate an issue of a signature on a document”, a matter never raised in the hearing, and directly inconsistent with Judge Norton's own remarks in court that Mr Ford had run a different case to his client.
The question arises: How can the Plaintiff be accused of “re-litigating” an issue when their case was never presented or heard?
This is one example of the alleged fraudulent record made in Judge Norton’s judgment.
The NSW Court of Appeal: A Judgment Asserting Claims are Without Basis
How can the NSW Court of Appeal later claim that the Plaintiff’s case had “no basis” while the defendants were simultaneously demanding that the Plaintiff file all of her evidence?
Even Mr James Berg of DLA Piper stated, in his affidavit, that the case against his client would require a 6 to 7 day contested hearing.
So, how is it possible for the NSWCA Justices to say the claim had “no basis”? If that were true, what would one be arguing for 6–7 days at a final hearing? This is just one example of how the web of lies tangles itself.
It is important to note that the Plaintiff, the former client of Mr Condon SC, met him only once, in conference on 12 September 2016, and received his four-page written appeal advice the following day, 13 September 2016. All of this occurred in the final days of the 28-day timeframe for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court. After that, the Plaintiff repeatedly sought clarification and production of the contract he referred to in his written advice.
Those requests have been ignored to this day, despite the false records in the 2023 published judgment of Justices Leeming and Kirk stating that Mr Condon SC had responded to the Plaintiff (his former client's) 16-page letter. That is not true; he never addressed the matters or produced the contract requested in the Plaintiff’s letter. No such evidence was ever given by Mr Condon SC to the NSWCA.
The truth is simple: it was never about the administration of justice. The agenda was set from the start.
The Judgments, the Media, and the False Narrative
The NSW Court of Appeal judgments in the Plaintiff’s matters are published. They are alleged to contain false narratives and fabricated records, which had the effect of defaming and framing the Plaintiff and her partner, Mr Bryl, who acted as her advocate in two leave to appeal hearings, each lasting approximately 50 minutes.
The Plaintiff’s leave to appeal application was weaponised for ulterior purposes. Instead of confining themselves to the leave application, the Justices used the proceedings to conduct a public character attack. In doing so, they recorded matters beyond the scope of the case, including narrative findings which damaged the Plaintiff’s and Mr Bryl’s professional reputations.
The judgments recorded purported evidence and representations from the three defendants, even though those defendants were not before the Court and gave no such evidence.
The Plaintiff notified the Justices of these issues. It is alleged that the Justices knew they had made false records. Under their judicial oath, judicial officers are required to act with integrity, and in circumstances where knowingly false records are published, they are duty-bound to take corrective action. Remaining on the bench while knowingly publishing false judicial records poses a danger to the public.
Ms Naomi Neilson of Lawyers Weekly echoed the false narratives in the Court of Appeal judgments, despite being told that the judgments contained false records, including but not limited to:
The defendants never appeared
The defendants never filed evidence
The defendants never filed a defence
The defendants never gave testimony
How can judges record facts and representations in favour of defendants who were never even in court?
Lawyers Weekly, in keeping with its ethical and fair reporting duties, ought to have notified the public of this. Did it disclose to readers its commercial relationships with Piper Alderman and DLA Piper, firms directly implicated in the Plaintiff’s cases, that routinely promote articles under the Lawyers Weekly banner? The answer is no.
The Origin of the Lie and Its Spread
The origin of the Plaintiff’s ordeal began with a falsehood in the Local Court. Magistrate Sharon Freund recorded that a contract existed when no such evidence was before the Court.
That lie metastasised:
into falsified cost assessments;
into judgments of the District Court and the Court of Appeal, which recorded false information;
into media reporting, including by Lawyers Weekly, which echoed those narratives;
into amplification by interested parties directly implicated in the Plaintiff’s cases.
All of these acts served one purpose: to protect the original fraud and to shield those involved.
Then It Reached the NSW Legal Regulators
Since 2016, the Plaintiff submitted reports and notices to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner ("OLSC") and the Law Society of NSW Professional Standards Department ("PSD").
They were ignored. Buried. No investigation. Forgotten.
Then came the retaliation.
The Plaintiff and her partner, Mr Bryl, were referred to the OLSC by NSW Court of Appeal Justices from a leave to appeal in the Plaintiff’s tort claim against Mr Ford, Mr Glynn, and Mr Condon SC, on the false premise that there was “no basis” for her three claims. These procedural hearings were not misconduct hearings, but they were used as a smokescreen.
The Law Society of NSW waited until the 2024 renewal period for practising certificates to interfere with the Plaintiff’s and Mr Bryl’s certificates.
No findings.
No charges.
No Chapter 5 process.
No NCAT.
Just an ambush.
Shortly after, their solicitors' data disappeared from the public register. Payments made for memberships and certificates were taken, but renewals were never processed. To date, the Law Society refuses to acknowledge those payments, despite emails and requests for confirmation.
After only three correspondences, the Law Society issued Section 45 decisions to each of them by email, stating its “view” that they were “unfit” to practise.
The most severe disciplinary action available against a solicitor was taken without disciplinary proceedings or determination. Two solicitors without any record against them were dismantled by mere opinion, untested and unproven.
Eighteen years of combined legal experience and twelve years of a law firm serving the public were destroyed in an instant. The Plaintiff and Mr Bryl were removed from practice because they reported and documented misconduct by multiple practitioners and judges.
No due process. No hearing. No evidence. No lawful basis. Just a coordinated, retaliatory act to protect the powerful and punish whistleblowers, witnesses, and victims.
Before the Supreme Court
So here we are, before the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the Law Society’s decisions.
Yes, we are cautious, given what was witnessed in the Plaintiff’s tort damages case and the false records created by judicial officers. But we only have one legal system, and it is the only lawful way to challenge these decisions.
Our firm was shut down, a firm that served the public with compliance and integrity for over 12 years. Our names were erased. A disciplinary record was placed against us without cause, without any breaches of law, conduct rules, or ethics; without a hearing; without a determination.
Even the Law Society’s own decisions admit:
there were no findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct;
there were no disciplinary proceedings or determinations.
So how is it possible that two lawyers, with no breaches of law, conduct, or ethics, who were never before a tribunal, were handed one of the most severe regulatory penalties available? That is the question the Law Society refuses to answer.
This Is Not Regulation, It Is An Abuse of Power
What you have just read is institutionalised corruption.
This is not regulation. This is abuse of power, the unlawful use of powers by corrupt officers within the Law Society, aided by public officers including Attorney General Michael Daley and MP Hugh McDermott, who assisted the Law Society in justifying its fabricated “alleged prior misconduct,” misconduct that never existed.
We were erased because we are witnesses. Because we reported corruption within the legal profession. Because we refused to stay silent.
They received the reports. They saw the documents. They made a deliberate choice, not to investigate, but to retaliate.
Why the Systemic Attack?
If you are wondering why the systemic attack, why us?
Because we carry the truth they are trying to bury. We are both witnesses and victims of corrupt and unlawful acts, including those of practitioners and judges we reported for serious misconduct and improprieties.
The Law Society and OLSC have shown they will do anything to silence that truth.
The public is now a witness. This is on the public record.
They Took Our Livelihoods, And Still Threaten Us
Even after taking our livelihoods, our business, and leaving our clients without legal representation, their cruelty persists.
They have threatened us to “permanently delete” all our posts to the public, to Premier Minns, to NSW Police, to the AFP, our petition on Change.org, our GoFundMe, and more.
The irony? They referred to our public posts and our 17 May 2025 video, attaching documents, screenshots, and a transcript, in their own decision. We only received those attachments when they served us with the Section 45 determinations. Now, they demand that very evidence be deleted, even though it is before the Supreme Court and has been provided to official authorities.
And they made these demands under legal threats, to cover up their improprieties and criminality.
Why We Must Speak Out
Why speak out? Why not just leave it to the courts?
Because we did. We followed the law. We accessed the courts. And this is what was done to us: threatened, ridiculed, undermined, and treated as less than human for exercising our rights.
What transpired in the NSW District Court and NSW Court of Appeal in 2023 would horrify any legal practitioner who knows the weight of a lawyer’s ethical duties and the integrity required in the legal process.
This is why our posts and videos are important: they are evidence, a witness’s and a victim’s account. They are timestamped. They record unlawful acts, past and ongoing.
They want this evidence deleted, even though it is before the Supreme Court and in the hands of official authorities. They want it gone because it proves the truth.
This Unspoken System They Built
This is the system they built.
It is eating away at the rule of law. It is corrupting our courts. It is putting the legal profession in disrepute.
And they will not stop unless we hold them accountable.
This is notice to the public.
This is just the beginning.
Disclaimer: The notice is a public interest disclosure and is based on what transpired in the NSW District Court, NSWCA, and Local Court proceedings in the above-mentioned cases, based on court transcripts, court documents, Defendants' representations, and written documents and advice. The information is subject to change, where any corrections, amendments, or additional information may be required. For queries, please contact: oblawyers.media@gmail.com
