Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris

[2025] NSWCA 159

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris [2025] NSWCA 159

Hearing dates:

15 July 2025

Date of orders:

18 July 2025

Decision date:

18 July 2025

Before:

Bell CJ, Kirk JA, Griffiths AJA

Decision:

(1) Declare that the Respondent, Mr George Sideris, is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian lawyers maintained by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, pursuant to s 22 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW);

(2)      Order that the name George Sideris be removed from the Roll of Australian lawyers; and

(3)      Order that the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — Disciplinary proceedings — Where practitioner communicated directly with opposing lawyers’ client on numerous occasions — Where practitioner’s communications with lawyers, Law Society and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) were routinely offensive and discourteous — Breach of rr 4.1.2 and 33 of Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) — Where NCAT made finding of professional misconduct and recommended the practitioner’s removal from the Roll of Australian lawyers – Lack of insight by practitioner – Finding that respondent not a fit or proper person to remain on the Roll.

Legislation Cited:

Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) ss 22, 23(1)(c), 260(c), 264(1), 297(1)(a), 302(1)(f)

Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) rr 4.1.2, 33

Cases Cited:

Barghouthi v ING Custodians Pty Limited [2003] FCA 636

Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2018] FCA 2070

Barristers’ Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253; (2000) 112 A Crim R 438

Butts v State 546 SE 2d 472 (2001)

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Clifton [2021] NSWCA 340

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Croke [2024] NSWCA 195

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Green [2022] NSWCA 257

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Leslie [2021] NSWCA 59

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Li [2024] NSWCA 218

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 121

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris [2024] NSWCATOD 3

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Yoon [2020] NSWCA 141

Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Einfeld [2009] NSWCA 255; (2009) 258 ALR 768

de Robillard v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v de Robillard (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 299

Garrard (t/as Arthur Anderson & Co) v Email Furniture Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 662

Griffin v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 364

Jones v Jones (1847) 5 Notes of Cases in the Ecclesiastical and Maritime Courts 134 

Kennedy v The Council of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales (1940) 13 ALJ 563

Lander v Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [2009] ACTSC 117; (2009) 231 FLR 399

Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Wharff [2012] SASCFC 116

Legal Profession Complaints Committee v in de Braekt [2013] WASC 124

LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 280 CLR 321; [2024] HCA 12

McDonald v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2017] VSC 89

New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284

Re Margetson and Jones [1897] 2 Ch 314

Texts Cited:

FT Horne, Cordery on Solicitors (Butterworths, 8th ed, 1988)

G E Dal Pont, Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility (Lawbook Co, 8th ed, 2025)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (Applicant)
George Sideris (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
K Morgan SC, E Dunlop (Applicant)
G Sideris (in person)

Solicitors:
Hicksons Lawyers (Applicant)

File Number(s):

2024/460528

Publication restriction:

N/A

Choose an item.

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

This was an application by the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (the Council) for the removal of Mr George Sideris (the Respondent) from the roll of Australian lawyers (the Roll) following a recommendation by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which had held that Mr Sideris was guilty of professional misconduct for breaches of rr 4.1.2 and 33 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) (Conduct Rules).

The Court (Bell CJ, Kirk JA, Griffiths AJA) held, granting the relief sought:

1. The Respondent was not a fit and proper person. His breaches of the Conduct Rules were coupled with a lack of insight into his professional shortcomings. He had engaged in grossly discourteous, coarse, disrespectful, gratuitously offensive, improperly threatening and wholly unprofessional communications; and made false statements as to his residence to avoid service of the proceedings: [54]-[63], [96]-[109].

2. Consideration and discussion of principles relating to removal from the Roll of Australian lawyers: [6]-[7], [31], [104]-[109].

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Croke [2024] NSWCA 195; de Robillard v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v de Robillard (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 299; Kennedy v The Council of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales (1940) 13 ALJ 563, considered.

Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Li [2024] NSWCA 218; Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Green [2022] NSWCA 257; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Einfeld [2009] NSWCA 255; (2009) 258 ALR 768; Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Yoon [2020] NSWCA 141; Barristers’ Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253; (2000) 112 A Crim R 438, cited.

3. Discussion of the importance of the obligations of courtesy and the “no contact rule” under rr 4.1.2 and 33 of the Conduct Rules, respectively: [16]-[27], [97].

Jones v Jones (1847) 5 Notes of Cases in the Ecclesiastical and Maritime Courts 134; Re Margetson and Jones [1897] 2 Ch 314; Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Wharff [2012] SASCFC 116, considered.

Legal Professional Complaints Committee v de Braekt [2013] WASC 124; Butts v State 546 SE 2d 486 (2001); Lander v Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [2009] ACTSC 117; (2009) 231 FLR 399; Barghouthi v ING Custodians Pty Limited [2003] FCA 636; Garrard (t/as Arthur Anderson & Co) v Email Furniture Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 662; Griffin v Council of Society of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 364; McDonald v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2017] VSC 89; Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2018] FCA 2070, discussed.

JUDGMENT

1. THE COURT: By Summons filed on 10 December 2024, the Council of the Law Society of New South Wales (the Council) sought:

1. a declaration that Mr George Sideris (the Respondent) is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian lawyers (the Roll) maintained by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, pursuant to s 22 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) (LPUL);

2. an order that the Respondent’s name be removed from the Roll; and

3. an order that the Respondent pay the Council’s costs of the proceedings.

2. These orders were sought pursuant to s 23(1)(c) of the LPUL which empowers this Court to order the removal of the name of persons from the Roll on the recommendation of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal).

3. The inherent jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court with respect to the control and discipline of Australian lawyers are not affected by anything in ch 5 of the LPUL which deals with professional discipline. So much is stated in LPUL s 264(1). The objectives of ch 5 include the monitoring, promotion and enforcement of the professional standards, competence and honesty of the Australian legal profession: LPUL s 260(c).

4. The Tribunal is empowered, if it thinks fit, to recommend that a lawyer’s name be removed from the Roll if, after completing a hearing into the lawyer’s conduct, it finds the lawyer guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct: LPUL s 302(1)(f). That is what occurred in the present case: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris (No 2) [2024] NSWCATOD 121 at [147(1)] (Stage 2 Decision or TD2).

5. As Brereton JA observed in Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Clifton [2021] NSWCA 340 at [7] (Clifton):

“The jurisdiction conferred on this Court by s 23 is a parallel jurisdiction to its inherent jurisdiction in respect of its officers and does not replace that jurisdiction. It supersedes the longstanding statutory arrangements for the discipline of the legal profession which have operated alongside the Court's inherent jurisdiction for many decades. … The current regime … perhaps … recognising that it is fitting that this Court as the keeper of the roll should be the ultimate determinant of whether a lawyer’s name is removed from the roll, no longer confers that ultimate power on the Tribunal, but reserves it to the Court, albeit upon the recommendation of the Tribunal.”

6. The Court is not bound to follow the Tribunal’s recommendation that the practitioner’s name be removed from the Roll; it retains the responsibility to be satisfied that the orders sought are appropriate on the facts found which is to say that the Court must independently exercise the power under s 23(1)(c) of the LPUL on the evidence and material before it: de Robillard v Council of the New South Wales Bar Association; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v de Robillard (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 299 at [227] (de Robillard), quoting Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Leslie [2021] NSWCA 59 at [30] (Leslie). Absent any challenge to the Tribunal’s findings by way of an appeal (and there has been no such challenge in this matter), it is open to this Court to accept those findings and the Tribunal’s characterisation of the practitioner’s conduct: see Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Yoon [2020] NSWCA 141 at [22], [32]-[33] (Yoon); Clifton at [8]-[9]; Leslie at [30]; and de Robillard at [222]-[224].

7. The jurisdiction is protective and, as Spigelman CJ observed in New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284 at [20]:

“The public must have confidence in the legal profession by reason of the central role the profession plays in the administration of justice. Many aspects of the administration of justice depend on the trust by the judiciary and/or the public in the performance of professional obligations by professional people.”

8. Removal from the Roll is the appropriate order where it is demonstrated both that the lawyer is presently not fit to practise and is likely to be unfit for the indefinite future: Council of Law Society of New South Wales v Green [2022] NSWCA 257 at [67] (Green). Because of that present and future focus, as at the time of the determination in this Court, it may be relevant for the Court to receive and consider evidence of events subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal, and consideration may also be given to what occurs in the course of the hearing in this Court.

9. Removing a legal practitioner’s name from the Roll is a serious step and should occur only in very serious cases where, for example, the character and conduct of the practitioner is seen to be “inconsistent with the privileges of further practice”: see Barristers’ Board v Darveniza [2000] QCA 253; (2000) 112 A Crim R 438 at [38].

Background and overview

10. The Respondent was admitted to the legal profession in New South Wales on 3 July 1987, and held a practising certificate in each year from 13 July 1987 to 30 June 2022. The Respondent has not held a practising certificate from 20 October 2022 to the present date.

11. The origin of this application lies in actions by the Respondent in acting for his elderly mother-in-law, Mrs Norma Sim, in her dealings with the Salvation Army (TSA) and its then solicitor, Mr Luke Geary of the firm Mills Oakley, in relation to the mother-in-law’s liability to pay a Refundable Accommodation Deposit and the balance of that deposit. TSA was the provider of Mrs Sim’s aged care accommodation.

12. On 18 May 2021, Mr Geary sent an email to the Respondent stating that he acted for TSA, was in the process of confirming TSA’s instructions, and to “Please direct any further correspondence concerning this matter to my office”.

13. By email dated 5 July 2021, Mr Geary again requested that the Respondent direct any correspondence concerning the dispute to his office, as opposed to TSA directly. This request was repeated by Mr Geary in what the Tribunal described as “increasingly direct terms” by emails on 8 July 2021, 30 August 2021, 6 September 2021, 19 October 2021 and 29 October 2021: TD1 [19].

14. The Respondent was and remains adamant that, in his dealings with TSA, he was acting in his capacity solely as a caring son-in-law and not in his capacity as a solicitor. This founded his argument that the conduct of which Mr Geary ultimately complained to the Law Society, and which underpins the Tribunal’s recommendation and the Council’s application, did not involve the Respondent acting in his capacity as a solicitor and thus did not entail a breach of rr 33 and 4.1.2 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW) (Conduct Rules). The relevant version of r 33 is quoted below (at [24]). Rule 4.1.2 provided (and still provides) that a solicitor must “be honest and courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice”.

15. The Tribunal disagreed with the Respondent’s contention as to the capacity in which he acted, following a close analysis of the facts and the terms of the very great deal of correspondence sent by the Respondent directly to TSA, including that bypassing its then solicitor, Mr Geary: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris [2024] NSWCATOD 3 at [98]-[147] (Stage 1 Decision or TD1). The Respondent was found to be acting as a legal practitioner in the course of the dispute between his mother-in-law and TSA from 1 July 2021 to 17 February 2022: TD1 [129]. It is apparent from the correspondence detailed in the decision that the finding was soundly based. As the Tribunal held, the Respondent referred to himself both explicitly and implicitly as a solicitor in his correspondence with TSA and Mr Geary on multiple occasions.

16. The “no contact” rule, as r 33 is sometimes known, has a long pedigree in the legal profession; direct contact by one party’s solicitor with the other party rather than through his, her or its solicitor, being described as “extremely unprofessional” as long ago as 1847: Jones v Jones (1847) 5 Notes of Cases in the Ecclesiastical and Maritime Courts 134 at 140. In Re Margetson and Jones [1897] 2 Ch 314 at 318–19, Kekewich J described this professional rule as “highly consonant with good sense and convenience, because otherwise solicitors cannot really do their duty, and it is impossible for business to be properly conducted unless the solicitors have the full confidence of their clients and are enabled to communicate the one with the other upon that footing”. In Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Wharff [2012] SASCFC 116, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia stated that:

“[11]   It is unethical and improper for a legal practitioner to communicate with an opposing party whom he or she knows to be represented by another legal practitioner in the matter without the latter’s consent.

[12]   The rationale for this principle includes protecting the opposing party against the solicitation of information by the opposing legal practitioner contrary to that party’s interests, as well as preventing the undermining of the other party’s trust and confidence in his or her own legal practitioner.”

17. In the present case, each breach of the no contact rule was found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct and, by reason of persistent breaches of r 33, after Mr Geary had requested that the Respondent deal directly with him as TSA’s solicitor, the Tribunal at TD1 [167]-[168] characterised the conduct considered cumulatively as professional misconduct, being conduct which involved a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence: LPUL s 297(1)(a).

18. When Mr Geary raised his complaint with the Respondent and requested that he deal with him as TSA’s solicitor rather than directly with TSA, the manner and tone of the Respondent’s correspondence with him and later the Law Society deteriorated to such an extent that the Tribunal also found that the Respondent had breached r 4.1.2 of the Conduct Rules. Indeed, the Tribunal (at TD1 [188]) characterised the Respondent’s breaches of the rule as “deliberate and wilful” after Mr Geary had written to him saying:

“I do not think it is appropriate for solicitors to use language of the kind you have used, in professional communications … please ensure your compliance with the Solicitors’ Rules regarding communications between practitioners.”

19. Courtesy and civility by and between practitioners are critical to the administration of justice, respect for and the reputation of the legal profession and ultimately, respect for the rule of law. “The importance of courtesy in the legal system, and in the relationship between the legal profession, the court system, and general public should not be understated”: Legal Profession Complaints Committee v in de Braekt [2013] WASC 124 at [28] (de Braekt). The Full Bench of the Western Australian Supreme Court in de Braekt at [30] also referred to the admonition of Benham CJ of the Supreme Court of Georgia in Butts v State 546 SE 2d 472 at 486 (2001):

“Civility is more than just good manners. It is an essential ingredient in an effective adversarial legal system such as ours. The absence of civility would produce a system of justice that would be out of control and impossible to manage: normal disputes would be unnecessarily laced with anger and discord; citizens would become disrespectful of the rights of others; corporations would become irresponsible in conducting their business; governments would become unresponsive to the needs of those they serve; and alternative dispute resolution would be virtually impossible.”

This same passage was quoted with approval by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in Lander v Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [2009] ACTSC 117; (2009) 231 FLR 399 at [23].

20. The importance of legal practitioners displaying an appropriate standard of courtesy and civility was emphasised by Allsop J in Barghouthi v ING Custodians Pty Limited [2003] FCA 636 at [16] who said “[c]ourtesy and civility are not bourgeois affectations. They are not the mark of the effete or inept litigator. They are part of a practitioner’s overriding duty to the court, indeed to the standards of the profession and to the public.” We agree.

21. Other authorities are to like effect: Garrard (t/as Arthur Anderson & Co) v Email Furniture Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 662 at 667; Griffin v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 364 at [105]-[106]; McDonald v Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2017] VSC 89 at [6]; Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2018] FCA 2070 at [79]; see also G E Dal Pont, Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility (Lawbook Co, 8th ed, 2025) at 767; FT Horne, Cordery on Solicitors (Butterworths, 8th ed, 1988) at 273.

22. As will be seen, the Respondent’s correspondence both before and indeed after the Tribunal’s decisions was grossly discourteous, coarse, disrespectful, gratuitously offensive, improperly threatening and wholly unprofessional. Its continuation after the Tribunal’s decisions also rendered the Respondent’s apology to the Tribunal on 24 August 2024, shortly after the Stage 2 Decision recommending his removal from the Roll, utterly hollow and disingenuous. This apology is extracted at [49] below and is dealt with in greater detail later in these reasons.

The “no contact” rule – a preliminary matter in relation to rule 33

23. Rule 33 of the Conduct Rules, as in force at the time of the hearing before the Tribunal, provided that:

“33   Communication with another solicitor’s client

33.1   In representing a client, a solicitor shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another practitioner unless—

33.1.1   the other practitioner has previously consented,

33.1.2   the solicitor believes on reasonable grounds that—

(i)   the circumstances are so urgent as to require the solicitor to do so, and

(ii)   the communication would not be unfair to the opponent’s client,

33.1.3   the communication is solely to enquire whether the other party or parties to a matter are represented and, if so, by whom, or

33.1.4   there is notice of the solicitor’s intention to communicate with the other party or parties, but the other practitioner has failed, after a reasonable time, to reply and there is a reasonable basis for proceeding with the communication.”

24. As at the time of the impugned conduct, r 33 was expressed in different terms (only being amended from 1 April 2022). It had provided that:

“33    Communication with another solicitor’s client

33.1      A solicitor must not deal directly with the client or clients of another practitioner unless:

33.1.1   the other practitioner has previously consented,

33.1.2   the solicitor believes on reasonable grounds that:

(i)    the circumstances are so urgent as to require the solicitor to do so, and

(ii)    the dealing would not be unfair to the opponent’s client,

33.1.3   the substance of the dealing is solely to enquire whether the other party or parties to a matter are represented and, if so, by whom, or

33.1.4   there is notice of the solicitor’s intention to communicate with the other party or parties, but the other practitioner has failed, after a reasonable time, to reply and there is a reasonable basis for proceeding with contact.”

25. Regrettably, the Tribunal referred to the wrong version of r 33 in holding that the Respondent had breached it. It did not refer to the version of r 33 that was in force at the time of the Respondent’s impugned conduct.

26. Ms Morgan SC, who appeared together with Ms Dunlop for the Council, properly drew this matter to the Court’s attention but submitted that there was no relevant difference so as to give rise to jurisdictional error, making reference in this context to LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 280 CLR 321; [2024] HCA 12 at [14] (LPDT).

27. We agree that, while unfortunate, the reference to the wrong version of r 33 by the Tribunal was not material in the sense that the decision could not “realistically” have been different had there been no error: LPDT at [14]. Although there are textual differences between the two versions of the rule, nothing turned on those differences in the present case. The impugned conduct would equally have breached either version of the rule and we are independently satisfied that it did.

28. The Respondent did not contend otherwise.

The Tribunal’s findings

29. The Tribunal’s Stage 1 and Stage 2 Decisions have already been referred to. The first involved the findings of professional misconduct; the second resulted in the Tribunal’s recommendation that the Respondent’s name be removed from the Roll. Both decisions are extremely detailed and contain close analysis of the conduct which led to the Tribunal’s ultimate findings. That conduct was principally manifested in correspondence between the Respondent and Mr Geary, and then other lawyers including those representing the Council in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Many examples of such correspondence (or extracts of it) were set out in the Tribunal’s decisions.

30. The Respondent did not appeal from either the Stage 1 or Stage 2 Decisions (and indeed did not attend the Stage 2 hearing). While aware of the Tribunal’s decisions, he indicated in the course of the hearing before this Court that he had not read either decision and was “not interested” in doing so.

31. Although the essence of the Tribunal’s decisions has already been noted, the gravity of the potential removal of a practitioner’s name from the Roll and the imperative of fostering the public interest by maintaining full accountability of those in the profession and involved in the administration of justice requires that further, more detailed reference be made to the Tribunal’s findings: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Li [2024] NSWCA 218 at [8]; Green at [59]; Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Einfeld [2009] NSWCA 255; (2009) 258 ALR 768 at [16].

32. In its Stage 1 Decision, in relation to the breach of r 33 of the Conduct Rules, the Tribunal reasoned as follows:

“Did the Solicitor send correspondence to representatives of TSA, knowing TSA was represented by another solicitor, in breach of r 33?

[153]   The Solicitor does not deny that he sent correspondence directly to TSA when TSA was represented by Mr Geary. Further, there is an unchallenged and documented history of Mr Geary repeatedly advising the Solicitor that because TSA was represented by a solicitor, the Solicitor should not write to TSA direct.

[154]   We find that, subsequent to the email from Mr Geary to the Solicitor on 18 May 2021 in which Mr Geary advised that he acted for TSA and asking that any further correspondence concerning the dispute in question be directed to his office (Mills Oakley), the Solicitor continued to send emails directly to TSA representatives despite correspondence from Mr Geary requesting the Solicitor cease emailing his client directly, including emails sent by Mr Geary on 5 July 2021; 8 July 2021; 30 August 2021; and 6 September 2021: particular 11.

[155]   We are satisfied that, in sending each of the items of correspondence listed in Schedule 1 to TSA, that he did so while representing his client, Mrs Norma Sim, in her dispute with TSA, with full knowledge that TSA was represented by another solicitor, Mr Geary. Mr Geary did not consent to the Solicitor contacting TSA in respect of the dispute. We make these findings.

[156]   Rule 33 contains some carve-outs (or exceptions) at r 33.1.1- 33.1.4, none of which were relied on by the Solicitor in his defence, and none of which apply here.

[157] Applying the ‘no contact’ rule in r 33 where the opposing (or other) party is an organisation, rather than a natural person, may present challenges in certain circumstances, such as where a solicitor may have other legitimate reasons to interact with the organisation or its personnel. That is not the case here.

[158]   Organisations such as TSA act through the agency of natural persons, such as their directors, employees or contractors. Guidance issued by regulators in several other jurisdictions is to the effect that it is an organisation’s authorised representatives or decision-makers with respect to a given matter, as well as its directors or senior management, that should be regarded as representing the other party for the purpose of the ‘no contact’ rule and it is therefore to dealings with those individuals to which the ‘no contact’ rule relates (see Queensland Law Society, Guidance Statement No 29 ‘Applying the ‘no contact’ rule when the other party is an organisation’ at [2.1]; see also Law Institute Victoria, Ethics Guidelines, ‘Communicating with Another Solicitor’s Client’). As far as we are aware, there is no judicial guidance on the issue. Neither party has raised any contention, nor made any submission, in relation to this issue.

[159]   The correspondence particularised in Schedule 1 was sent or copied variously and in differing combinations to: a Mr R Donaldson (the Chair of TSA); a W Merrett (the Chief Secretary of TSA); a Ms J Donaldson (described as a member of the ‘senior leadership’ and ‘senior executive personnel’ of TSA); a K Oberg (described as a member of the ‘executive personnel’ of TSA); a J Russell, a S Gibson and a M Thusanthan (described as ‘staff’); and a ‘communications@’ email address. The vast majority of the correspondence particularised in Schedule 1 was sent to TSA senior and/or executive personnel, including Mr and Ms Donaldson, W Merrett and K Oberg. Only ten of the forty-six items were sent or copied to ‘staff’ of TSA.

[160] When (as here) an organisation is the ‘client’ for the purposes of r 33, and if there is an implicit requirement that the direct communications in question be made to persons within the organisation who form part of the senior management or who otherwise have relevant decision-making authority, we think that any such requirement is met in the present circumstances. The recipients of the emails to TSA included persons who are likely to have had the authority to represent TSA in relation to the dispute in question between Mrs Sim and TSA. Indeed, the very reason that the Solicitor sought to communicate directly with TSA was to contact TSA representatives who may have authority to influence TSA’s position concerning Mrs Sim’s liability to pay the RAD (and the amount of any refund payable by TSA to Mrs Sim). That is the case even for the emails sent by the Solicitor to ‘staff’ (as opposed to members of the ‘senior leadership’ or ‘executive personnel’) of TSA. Such is clear on an objective reading of those emails.

[161] We are satisfied that the Solicitor breached r 33 of the Conduct Rules on each occasion he sent correspondence to TSA as listed in Schedule 1: particular 13.

Does each instance of the correspondence sent to representatives of TSA constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct?

[162]   A breach of the Conduct Rules is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct: Conduct Rules, r 2. The sending of each item of correspondence particularised in Schedule 1 amounts to a breach of r 33. Each item of correspondence was sent after a request from Mr Geary that the Solicitor ‘direct any further correspondence concerning this matter to my office.’ We agree with the submissions of the Law Society that the deliberate and wilful nature of the Solicitor’s breaches of r 33 justifies a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct in relation to each item of correspondence particularised in Schedule 1, because each instance was conduct that fell short of the standard of competence a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent lawyer. Particulars 14(a) and (b) are made out and we make these findings.

Does the Solicitor’s correspondence sent to TSA found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct, considered cumulatively, amount to professional misconduct?

[163]   Considered cumulatively, we find that the conduct by which the Solicitor sent the forty-six items of correspondence to TSA, as particularised in Schedule 1, amounts to professional misconduct.

[164]   Each item of correspondence was sent after Mr Geary wrote to the Solicitor on 18 May 2021, in which he confirmed that he acted for TSA and requested future correspondence be directed to his office. Despite repeated requests that the Solicitor cease contacting TSA on 5 July 2021, 8 July 2021, 30 August 2021, 6 September 2021, 19 October 2021 and 29 October 2021, the Solicitor continued to do so. On 6 September and 19 October 2021, the Solicitor was warned that Mr Geary would make a complaint on his client’s behalf if the direct correspondence continued. Mr Geary advised the Solicitor that he had lodged a complaint with the Legal Services Commissioner on 27 October 2021. The Solicitor was notified of the complaint by the Law Society on 7 December 2021.

[165]   Notwithstanding Mr Geary’s warnings about making a complaint and being notified that a complaint had been made, the Solicitor continued to send correspondence to TSA: for correspondence after Mr Geary’s warning, see Schedule 1, items 16-46 and Schedule 2, items 13-52; for correspondence after being notified by Mr Geary that he had made a complaint, see Schedule 1, items 18-46 and Schedule 2, items 18-52; for correspondence after being notified of the complaint by the Law Society, see Schedule 2, items 33-46 and Schedule 2, items 34-52. The course of correspondence amounted to a ‘deliberate and persistent system of conduct’: Clyne at 200.

[166]   We have found that the purpose of the Solicitor’s communication with TSA was to influence TSA’s position concerning Mrs Sim’s liability to pay the RAD (and the amount of any refund payable by TSA to Mrs Sim). This heightens the seriousness of the breaches: c.f. Paric at [20]; see Orlov and Pursley.

[167]   As in Wharff, the ‘nature and extent of the direct communications … and his persistence in making them after being warned’, considered cumulatively justifies a finding of professional misconduct. It represents a consistent and substantial failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence. We agree with the submissions of the Law Society that the number of occasions on which correspondence was sent constitutes ‘consistent’ conduct that represents a want of fitness or competence’: Webb at [26]. And further, the Solicitor’s repeated breaches of r 33, and the purpose for which the breaches were undertaken, make his conduct serious in that they reflect his failure to appreciate the ethical requirements which applied, ‘rais[ing] questions as to [his] competence and diligence and thereby warrant[ing] the description ‘substantial’’ (Webb at [22]). Both of these characterisations, ‘consistent’ and ‘substantial’, justify a finding of professional misconduct.

[168]   We find that, considered cumulatively, the conduct by which the Solicitor sent the forty-six items of correspondence to TSA as set out in Schedule 1 amounts to professional misconduct, because the conduct constituted a consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence. In addition, the Solicitor’s conduct amounts to a substantial failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence. Particular 14 is met.”

33. In relation to the breach of r 4.1.2 of the Conduct Rules, the Tribunal reasoned as follows:

“[179]   We find that the Solicitor used profanities or otherwise offensive and inappropriate language that was discourteous in the particularised correspondence. For example:

‘If you think I sound frustrated well you are NOT WRONG. Pissed off I think is the word’ (Schedule 2, item 1)

‘So basically I am fed up with your crap so test my patience no more … So you test with me if you wish and pay the consequences or get the Salvation Army – Salvation Army shit what a farce the name is … do you understand what that would mean to Norma Sim – no because you are caught with your bullshit legal ego and do not care about a sick old lady …
Basically i am sick of your shit and all the emails … So for a fucking lousy $100,000 … you want to screw an old lady over .’ (Schedule 2, item 2)

‘Luke , let me say nicely - spoke to the elderly lady again a while ago - I am sick of all this delay or should I say SHIT and if I do not get a good response tomorrow - then let’s see what the Salvation Army thinks. An old lady is suffering financially and the old elderly lady is going bankrupt - fuck mate - no respect at all.’ (Schedule 2, item 5)

‘And tell the salvation Army ( Salvation Army HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ) …’ (Schedule 2, item 8)

‘I hope not or are you just trying to be a lawyer trying to think you can push people around in this silly ‘I am a lawyer bullshit’’ (Schedule 2, item 9)

‘I am over the legal bullshit … Think about all this mate and let’s get over the bullshit and get the job done’ (Schedule 2, item 14)

‘So with respect , grow up mate , open your eyes and cut this legal bullshit and let’s common sense prevail. I am very upset and If you want to make my day go ahead with all your legal rubbish. GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY’ (Schedule 2, item 16)

‘If you think I am pissed off – then try me further as I am really pissed off that an old lady can be treated this way by you and TSA. What sort of people are we dealing with here. Yes, I forgot, stupid lawyers that are embroiled in their self importance.’ (Schedule 2, item 17)

‘As to you not wanting to discuss the matter is pathetic and I am concerned about you calling yourself a lawyer.’ (Schedule 2, item 18)

‘you can play your childish games but remember we are both lawyers and your senior partners will soon hear about your antics to really crucify an old lady . I suggest you look at yourself and grow up rather than pretend you are independent where really you have a major conflict. You want to complain to the law Society , well let’s see who wins here you pathetic human. Mate I was a lawyer when you were in nappies so I suggest you grow up or we can really have a fight . … Grow up, that is what I say to you. In short I could say f– –k off but I am too much of a gentleman trying to protect a 91 year old that needs help.’ (Schedule 2, item 48)

[180]   Comments to similar effect were included in the correspondence contained in Schedule 2, items 9, 14, 21, 26 and 47; and further than that quoted in Schedule 2, items 2 and 48. In each instance, the relevant aspect of each of those items of correspondence was discourteous.

[181]   Further, the Solicitor made assertions that the recipients of his correspondence acted in bad faith; including allegations of poor conduct by Mr Geary or TSA in the particularised correspondence which, on the material before us, are without foundation. Such conduct was discourteous for that reason. For example:

‘You can now deal with the fallout by intentionally and purposely stopping an old lady from getting some Financial Hardship assistance...You people have no respect for aged people – non (sic) at all and I am surprised at your attitude as a lawyer as you seem to not be able to understand or do not want to understand the situation here.’ (Schedule 2, item 6)

‘You had a conflict as you were an ex GC of the Salvation Army but did you declare that – NO – you should have removed yourself but thought only of fees. … you just resisted and I suggest in spite . I have also found out that you have not briefed your client fully but let not go there.’ (Schedule 2, item 8)

‘TSA has the opportunity to help Norma Sim, the way it has helped other people in need but the whole matter has been spiteful and now I have a very sick old lady in need of Financial hardship assistance yet TSA just wants to continue to torture her to the end and just wants her to die.’ (Schedule 2, item 11)

‘TSA could have agreed to refund the LOAN MONEY – YES LOAN MONEY THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS A RAD but no just wanted to torture the old lady . Why we do not know????’ (Schedule 2, item 11)

‘I am totally surprised with you stooping to the level you have stooped with Law Society complaints. Cheap trick rather than getting a good resolution fir (sic) an old lady.’ (Schedule 2, item 34)

‘Why is it you just want to torture her by not reducing the money you are holding …’ (Schedule 2, item 41)

‘the lady needs financial hardship assistance and you guys just sit there and let her suffer. Shame on you all’ (Schedule 2, item 43)

‘What sort of people are you. The lady is 91 and the way things are going she will die soon and it will be your fault.’ (Schedule 2, item 45)

‘Luke , you are playing a game here using your position as a Solicitor to not give the right advice to your client. That is basically negligence if not tantamount to criminal action against an old lady that has been screwed over by the Salvation Army.” (Schedule 2, item 47)’

[182]   Comments to similar effect were included in the correspondence contained in Schedule 2, items 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 35, 37, 42, 46, 48 and 49 and further than that quoted in Schedule 2, items 8, 11, 43, 45, 47. In each instance, the relevant aspect of each of those items of correspondence was discourteous.

[183]   We are also satisfied that the Solicitor otherwise communicated in a manner that was unsuited to professional communication because it was discourteous, in that it was condescending or used otherwise inappropriate language. For example:

‘Further you or the Salvation Army do anything at all to hurt the nice 91-year-old lady that is in the home and you will deal with me personally.’ (Schedule 2, item 3)

‘Luke please do not treat me like peasant.’ (Schedule 2, item 4)

‘Shame on all of you’ (Schedule 2, item 7)

‘I do not want to say things that will upset me as a gentleman and you . But you can imagine what I would say to you so lets leave it at that.’ (Schedule 2, item 8)

‘Me at my age could not give a stuff about the legal services Commissioner or the Law Society or God as I had a practising certificate when you were not even in diapers and I am a scientist, engineer and lawyer and the most successful of seven children who came out after the war in Europe with only a pair of underpants and no shoes.’ (Schedule 2, item 9)

‘I am fed up with the TSA attitude… The attitude is terrible and the old lady is suffering.’ (Schedule 2, item 12)

‘My threats have not been bad - on the contrary you have been nasty with the law Society complaints … A bit of decency would go down well.’ (Schedule 2, item 37)”

[184]   Comments to similar effect, and which were also discourteous, were included in the correspondence contained in Schedule 2, items 10, 17, 19, 21, 23; and further than that quoted in Schedule 2, items 1, 9. Unfounded suggestions that another solicitor is treating someone “like a peasant” or that they lack requisite knowledge and experience because of their relative youth (see “in diapers”), are expressions of contempt or ridicule. A comment that Mr Geary would have to deal with the Solicitor “personally” can only be read as a threat of action going beyond the expression of Mrs Sim’s lawful rights. Nor is it courteous to send correspondence inviting Mr Geary to guess at the unpleasant things the Solicitor might say would it not upset him “as a gentleman” or to criticise Mr Geary for making what, as we have found, was an entirely legitimate complaint to a regulatory body. The Solicitor’s own views were irrelevant to the outcome Mrs Sim was entitled to agitate for in respect of the dispute, meaning that where he felt “shame” should lie or whether he was “fed up” are simply not issues that should have found their way into the correspondence.

…

Does each instance of discourteous correspondence constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct?

[188] Each instance of conduct above that is within the four corners of the complaint as particularised is a breach of r 4.1.2 of the Conduct Rules, which is capable of amounting to unsatisfactory professional conduct: Conduct Rules, r 2. All but five of the particularised items of correspondence were sent by the Solicitor after Mr Geary wrote to the Solicitor, saying: “I do not think it is appropriate for solicitors to use language of the kind you have used, in professional communications … please ensure your compliance with the Solicitors’ Rules regarding communications between practitioners.” The breaches of the rule after this warning can be characterised as deliberate and wilful. Each instance of conduct “falls short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent lawyer” and is capable of sustaining a finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct: Uniform Law, s 296. Particulars 19(a), (b), (c) and (d) are made out and we make these findings.

Does the Solicitor’s discourteous correspondence found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct, considered cumulatively, amount to professional misconduct?

[189]   Unsatisfactory professional conduct is also capable of amounting to professional misconduct where it involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence: Uniform Law, s 297(1)(a). In that regard, the sheer volume of discourteous correspondence spanning the period from 23 July 2021 to 17 February 2022, taken with the highly, and obviously, inappropriate language repeatedly used, warrants the conclusion that the Solicitor’s conduct evidenced by that material was professional misconduct. It represents both a substantial and consistent failure to maintain a reasonable standard of competence. Particulars 19(e) and (f) are thereby made out, and we make these findings.”

34. On 9 August 2024, following a further hearing, the Tribunal made orders recommending that the Respondent’s name by removed from the Roll: TD2 [147]. Certain aspects of both the hearing and the Tribunal’s decision should be highlighted.

35. First, as has already been noted, the Respondent did not appear at the Stage 2 hearing on 12 June 2024. The Tribunal observed (at TD2 [10]) that:

“The basis of his unavailability may be summarised by reference to the sentiment expressed in his email sent on 10 May 2024 to the Tribunal’s Registry, Hicksons Lawyers and the Law Society: ‘I have a lot of things to do before I go so cannot meet with you bunch of inconsiderate people. Nor do I want to meet with you …’ (Affidavit of C Moore 21 March 2024, Exhibit CM-3, p 28). He continued to send emails to Hicksons Lawyers and to the Tribunal up to the hearing date on 12 June 2024, including on the morning of the hearing, and was clearly aware of the hearing date and time. No request for an adjournment of that hearing date was made or granted.”

36. There had been much correspondence between the Respondent and the Law Society, its legal representatives (Hicksons Lawyers) and the Tribunal leading to the State 2 hearing. The Tribunal said that “[t]he vast majority of these emails contain discourteous language, insults directed at various persons, the Law Society or Tribunal, or threats to commence legal action against individuals, the Law Society or the Tribunal”: TD2 [22]. These communications spanned almost 400 pages.

37. The Tribunal gave examples of this correspondence and the language contained in it, noting that the recipients of the “discourteous, offensive or otherwise inappropriate correspondence” included employees of the Law Society (including in-house solicitors) and solicitors at Hicksons: TD2 [25].

38. The Tribunal instanced one email in which the Respondent wrote “FUCK off the lot of you you bunch of idiots” and “Let me be a littler nicer – FUCK OFF” and others which stated “Better still” or “So simply put” before attaching images of a middle finger: TD2 [25]. The Tribunal noted at TD2 [26] that another theme which emerged from the correspondence was:

“the insulting (and potentially contemptuous) language directed to the Tribunal and also to the Law Society, particularly after the publication of the Tribunal’s Stage 1 findings. The tone and language used in correspondence to the Tribunal, including its Registry, progressively worsens during Stage 2 of the proceedings. The respondent refers to NCAT as ‘a bunch of idiots hiding behind a Govt banner’ and stated: ‘… fuck off all of you’. In another email, he states in relation to the Stage 1 decision: ‘I have read it all – what a load of shit’.”

39. The Tribunal also made reference to 12 emails or letters which the Respondent sent to the Supreme Court and its Registry which are characterised by similar kinds of language, threats and discourteous conduct as are found in his communications to the Law Society, its lawyers or the Tribunal in the context of these disciplinary proceedings: TD2 [28].

40. The Tribunal also engaged in a close analysis of correspondence after the Stage 1 hearing for the purposes of assessing whether the Respondent exhibited any genuine insight, contrition or remorse in relation to the conduct which founded the findings of professional misconduct. The Tribunal concluded that it did not: TD2 [100]. We agree with that finding which was further reinforced by our consideration of the Respondent’s conduct after the Stage 2 Decision (dealt with below) and indeed in the course of the hearing before us where the Respondent appeared.

41. The absence of any insight, especially in relation to the finding of professional misconduct in respect of r 4.1.2, was confirmed by the tone and language of much of the correspondence which took place after the Stage 1 Decision and which has been referred to at [36]-[40] above. As the Tribunal noted, the Law Society, its employees and lawyers, have been the recipients of an unrelenting stream of discourteous, insulting or offensive correspondence from the Respondent: TD2 [102]. The Tribunal continued:

“Some emails go beyond discourteous or insulting conduct and would appear to be an attempt to intimidate the Law Society and Tribunal, including by threats to sue both institutions ‘for huge damages’ if things are not ‘shut down’. Whilst an assertion of a genuine legal right is not inappropriate, that is not what has occurred in this instance, as the threats of legal action were linked to the Law Society’s continuation of these proceedings. He also writes to the Law Society, Hicksons Lawyers and the Tribunal’s Registry that the Tribunal ‘illegally’ found him guilty of professional misconduct. A blatant disregard for the institutions charged with responsibilities to apply the Uniform Law cannot be said to uphold the standards expected of a legal practitioner.”

42. Anticipating our conclusion on the Council’s application in this Court, we agree with this assessment.

43. In considering the appropriate protective orders to make, the Tribunal observed that it was “difficult to see that there is genuine insight demonstrated, let alone remorse or contrition”: TD2 [99]. The Tribunal found that, while the Respondent offered an apology for potentially breaching r 33 of the Conduct Rules (TD2 [92]), he showed no remorse or contrition, evidenced by his email to the Law Society on 28 November 2023, where he said “I have no remorse as I was acting for my mother in law you pathetic human being”: TD2 [94].

44. The Tribunal found that, given the “continuing and entrenched” pattern of the Respondent’s behaviour, it was not confident that the Respondent would not repeat the same type of conduct: TD2 [110]. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent’s “failure to appreciate the wrongfulness and gravity of proven misconduct goes towards a finding of unfitness. One reason is that it increases the risk of its recurrence and with it, the need to protect the community from misconduct of that kind”: TD2 [111]. The Tribunal further held that (TD2 [112]):

“In the absence of any evidence to indicate that the respondent has insight as to the gravity of his misconduct, or that he possesses any contrition or remorse for his actions, it must be assumed that misconduct of this kind may well continue into the future, warranting a more severe protective order…”

45. The Tribunal also had regard to the fact that:

1. the Respondent’s use of profanities was “extreme”; and

2. the Respondent flouted the legal professional rules, exemplified by continuing to reference a non-existent law firm and calling himself a “solicitor” 25 times despite his practising certificate being cancelled: TD2 [114]-[115].

46. In turn, the Tribunal was “satisfied, on the civil standard, that at the time of [its] determination the respondent is not fit to practise as a legal practitioner”: TD2 [124]. The Tribunal was also satisfied that such unfitness to practise was likely to be indefinite because the Respondent did not show insight which demonstrated an understanding as to what the improper conduct was, and how to ensure no such circumstance occurred again: TD2 [125].

47. The Tribunal held that there was utility in making the Roll removal recommendation because:

1. specific deterrence was required to send the Respondent a clear message that the type of behaviour cannot be tolerated; and

2. a reprimand or fine would not be sufficient to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the legal profession: TD2 [133]-[134].

48. The Tribunal therefore made the Roll removal recommendation, finding that there was “no viable alternative that would adequately protect the public and avoid bringing the profession into disrepute”: TD2 [136].

49. By email dated 21 August 2024, following the Stage 2 Decision, the Respondent sent the following message to the President of the Tribunal, Justice Armstrong, and others including Ms Stevenson (a solicitor employed by Hicksons Lawyers), the President of the Law Society and an NCAT affiliated address as follows:

“And with absolute respect I do have a right of appeal on the decision in accordance with law and Internally within the Law Society and also with NCAT, however I will write about a mutual agreement for me to not have my practicing certificate cancelled and give an irreversible undertaking that I do not intended to practice law going forward but my practicing certificate is to remain with me.

I will say again, I sincerely apologise, sincerely apologise for my actions when I was looking after Norma Sim but one cannot just let a then 92 year old to just wither and die hence why I went out of my way to help her as her son in law in her time of needed .

In my actions with Luke Geary a lawyer acting for the Salvation Army I was extremely stressed , especially when my mother in Laws daughter Fiona Sim n [sic] only child was indeed very stressed with her mother's condition and afraid she would pass away if she did not get care from the Salvation Army and doctors…”

50. On 26 September 2024, the Council resolved to commence and prosecute proceedings in this Court, seeking the orders referred to at [1] above.

Proceedings in this Court

51. Proceedings were commenced in this Court by Summons on 10 December 2024. The service of those proceedings was not straightforward and it is convenient to refer to some interactions between the Respondent and the Council’s lawyers in relation to it for reasons that will become apparent.

52. By email dated 7 January 2025 directed to the Respondent, the Law Society, through its solicitors attached “by way of service” the Summons and a supporting affidavit and exhibit of Ms Griswold. The email requested:

“Could you please confirm that you accept service of the attached documents by email?

If not, could you please provide us with your address so that the documents attached can be personally served.

If we do not hear from you and are required to obtain substituted service orders, our client reserves its rights to recover any costs relating to the substituted service orders from you.

We note that this matter is listed for directions on 3 February 2025 at 9am.

We look forward to hearing from you.”

53. By email dated 8 January 2025 at 11.05am, the Respondent replied:

“I want you to serve the documents to the below address

George Xaralambos Sideris

Filia Village

Filia Greece

I will be absent and on the road for over 2 years as I have said to you in the past

Finally I have sent many emails so I suggest you and NCAT read these as I have done nothing wrong AT ALL to the Law Society or NCAT .

So go ahead and try to have me removed from the list of lawyers registered with the Supreme Court and you and all the Law Society will find out what sort of person you are dealing with .

Mark my words - I will not put up with NCAT ( bunch of clowns ) or Clifford Flax or any body else at the Law Society

I suggest you all grow up especially Clifford Flax and the director of NCAT

As to costs , I am NOT going to pay any costs to anyone so you all waste money as you wish .

It is obvious you have nothing else better to do.

George Sideris

Principal

George Sideris & Associates -Business and Commercial lawyers

0402892648”

54. By email on the same day at 11.12am, the Respondent stated:

“Finally I will not accept service of any document by email.

So simply put - piss off all of you.

George Sideris

Principal

George Sideris & Associates -Business and Commercial lawyers

0402892648”

55. By email dated the same day at 12.03pm, the Respondent added “Again - - simply put … piss off all of you”.

56. By email dated 11 February 2025 at 3.10pm, the Respondent wrote to Ms Stevenson of Hicksons Lawyers and various others, stating:

“You bunch have had a big ugly moron deliver a document to my ex wife’s home to my nephew , as I am in Europe as you know ( Filia Greece ) trying to sort out family issues - including the death of my my relatives mother in an accident .

Also I do not live at unit 5, 10 Muston street .Mosman .

I live at Filia in the Peloponnesos in Sparta Greece.

I want to solve this stupid matter once and for all and tomorrow I will send to NCAT , Clifford Flax the Law Society and yourselves a proposal to shut this out once and for all- forever as I will not be returning to Australia for a very long time.

If you do not accept my proposal then you can wait more than 4-5 years to get a resolution.” (emphasis added)

57. Pausing there, and putting aside for the moment the continuing gross discourtesy and unprofessional language, it will be apparent that the Respondent was insisting on personal service of the Court documents, asserting that he lived in Filia, Greece and directing that the Summons and supporting affidavit be physically served on him there. The Respondent was asked about a number of these documents and statements contained in them by members of the Court in the course of the hearing and, in particular, his claim that he lived in Filia, Greece, at which he had requested the court documents be served.

58. The following exchange occurred:

“RESPONDENT: I used ‑ that should say, ‘I used to live at Filia’.

BELL CJ: When ‑ how‑‑

RESPONDENT: That's ‑ that's where I was born.

BELL CJ: How long ago was that?

RESPONDENT: When ‑ when ‑ before my father brought us out here.  When I came out here when I was four.  So ‑ yeah.

BELL CJ: And have you ever lived there since?

RESPONDENT: I went back with my wife to visit in, gee, early ‑ early to mid‑80s.  We just went for a trip.

BELL CJ: But you haven't otherwise lived there?

RESPONDENT: No.

BELL CJ: Okay.

RESPONDENT: No, it's not ‑ it's not a place that people live there anymore.  It's deserted.”

59. Subsequently, the Respondent was asked what would have been the purpose of communicating what, on his account, was historical information to the place where he was born, which he had last visited a number of years earlier and which was now deserted, to the solicitor who was attempting to serve documents on him, his wholly unsatisfactory answer was:

“The purpose of her ‑ the ‑ Tayah is to understand that I'm Greek, and I lived in Greece.  I should've put ‑ what I should've put there is, ‘I was born in the Peloponnese in Sparta, Greece’”

When asked to comment on whether the statement “I live in Filia Peloponnesos in Sparta, Greece” was not only wrong but false, his answer was:

“Whichever way you want to put it, wrong or false.  It's not false because I did live ‑ I live at Filia in the Peloponnese in Sparta, Greece.  If we could put a ‘D’ there, it's correct.  It's not false.  It's a misrepresentation.  My sincere apologies.”

60. This was not so much a matter for apology as it was telling, not only in terms of it amounting to a clear attempt to avoid service but doing so by reference to false statements as to the Respondent’s habitual abode and wholly implausible and tendentious explanations for his false statements to the solicitor for the Law Society.

61. Regrettably, this was not the only material which raised more than serious questions about the Respondent and his fitness to practice. On 26 February 2025, the Respondent wrote to the Law Society’s solicitor after she had emailed him courteously to inform him of directions made the previous day by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for the preparation of the hearing of the Summons. The Respondent replied later the same day as follows:

“All, I am over all this ‘CRAP’ and have more important things to consider - sick mother in law, sick grandmother, grandfather near death and am to deal with all the bullshit imposed on me by you guys , Cliffird Flax and NCAT .

You will see that when you read the shit that Anthony Lean was going on about and supported by the other clown Clifford Flax ,and NCAT I did nothing wrong - NOTHING wrong , but tried to assist with the bullshit imposed on me .

A psychiatrist engaged by that idiot Lean and supported by Flax could not be wrong especially when he clearly stated I have no illnesses and can work as a lawyer.

So I want this fucking mess shut down so I can stay in Filia in Greece to look after my family or I will go public and also sue all of you .

So shut it down NOW or you will make my day.” (emphasis added)

62. Four observations can be made about the statements made in this email. First, and most obviously, the inappropriateness of the language is patent: “CRAP”; “the shit that Anthony Lean was going on about”; “the other clown”; “the bullshit imposed on me”; “that idiot Lean”; “fucking mess”. Second, the continuation of this tone and language exposed the Respondent’s purported apology referred to above at [49] as not worth the paper it was written on. Third, the statement “so I can stay in Filia in Greece” implied that that is where the Respondent was and yet he told the Court at the hearing that that was where he was born, where he had last visited years before and which he told the Court was now deserted. Fourth, the statements in the present tense that he had to deal with a “sick grandmother” and a “grandfather near death” were inconsistent with other material before the Court and the Respondent’s own acknowledgement to the Court that his grandmother had died well prior to the date of this email (first, he said that this had occurred in 2023 and subsequently placed it earlier) and that his grandfather, said to be “near death” at the time of the email, had died even earlier.

63. In relation to the Respondent’s email dated 26 February 2025, the following exchange occurred:

“BELL CJ: So the references to having more important things to consider, sick mother‑in‑law, sick grandmother, grandfather near death; that's all statements you made in‑‑

RESPONDENT: Yes, correct.

BELL CJ: ‑‑February 2025.  You say they were mistakes, do you?

RESPONDENT: Well I didn't put any dates next to them, which I should've.  But I didn't put any dates next to the‑‑

BELL CJ: It's present tense.

RESPONDENT: Okay.  I made a mistake.  I made a mistake.  My apologies.  It shouldn't be present tense.  My apologies.”

The Respondent also said that insofar as he referred to having a “sick grandmother” and a “grandfather near death”, that:

“they're not false.  I didn't put dates in it.  I should’ve put dates, but I didn’t because I wrote it very, very quickly, and I mean, this was written at 4.05pm, and I was with my mother‑in‑law, trying to sort her out.  That particular paragraph is not as accurate as it should be.  I’ll say that to you.”

There is no satisfactory explanation for the Respondent’s statements to Ms Stevenson in his email of 25 February 2025 other than that they were inconsistent with the truth.

64. Returning to the Summons, the Council particularised its case that the Respondent was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll by reason of and reference to the Tribunal’s findings that the Respondent was guilty of professional misconduct and its subsequent recommendation to remove the Respondent’s name from the Roll.

65. It relied upon particular findings made in both of the Tribunal’s decisions. The Council also tendered evidence on the hearing of the Summons relating to the Respondent’s conduct and interactions with the Law Society and the Tribunal subsequent to the Stage 2 Decision.

66. The Respondent relied upon three affidavits he had sworn, on 13 May 2025, 22 May 2025, and 9 July 2025. He also tendered four exhibits.

67. Exhibit 1 was a letter from his mother-in-law, Ms Norma Sim, dated 7 July 2025. During the hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that he authored the document:

“RESPONDENT: … My wife sent you a nice letter, and my mother in law sent you a nice letter, saying what sort of person I am. If that doesn't make any significance about what they think of me, well, I may as well just sort of give up and go live in another world. Have you have you seen the letter from Norma Sim?

KIRK JA: Yes. You tendered it earlier.

…

GRIFFITHS AJA: Did she draft that letter, to your knowledge?

RESPONDENT: No. I drafted it, but I spoke to her. I said, ‘Norma, what’ she’s she’s ninety she’ll be 95 soon, 94. And I said to her, ‘Norma, what is it you want to say?’ And I drafted it, and I said to her, ‘Is this what you want to say?’ And I read it to her. She said, ‘Yes, but I'd like you to bit more put a bit more detail in there’. And I said, ‘What, sweetheart?’ And she said, ‘Basically why don't you go and tell them to all drop dead, because that's exactly what I might be doing soon, and I am sick and tired of this attack they've give they've got on you, when you tried to help me.’”

68. Exhibit 2 comprised two emails sent by Mr Jonathan Park, a Senior Client Director of Professional and Managed Services at “Open Text”. One of these, dated 17 September 2021 sent to another employee of Open Text, Mr Peter Perez, stated that:

“George is an absolute pleasure to deal with and have as a General Counsel at Open Text with his pragmatism, advanced technical knowledge and diverse legal and commercial knowledge all over APAC in all areas in which Open Text operates, including Cloud , Managed Services, Saas, Maas, Software Sales and Service and Professional services especially with Corporate groups, Govt (State and Federal), Councils, Health and Insurance groups such as Allianz, iCare and others.

He is not only extremely responsive to all of us and Open Text but the key value that George brings to the table is his ability to be very creative and recommend different approaches to move forward in tricky legal discussions with the customers.

Normally the Legal Counsel team would say ‘no’ and that's the end of the conversation, however with George, he brings forward the view of ‘OK - but we take a different approach’ and he works with us to ensure we have a win-win for our projects.

It really has been a breath of fresh air working with George as he works with you as a team and helps us understand the legal and associated commercial issues. He has also educated us on what areas are risky and what to look for even at the sales process so we do not misrepresent anything to the customers.

Hence, my recommendation to explore options to keep George and continue with George’s service at Open Text as he is a very valued member within our organization.”

69. Exhibit 3 was a letter dated 10 July 2025 signed by the Respondent and Dr Fiona Sim, the Respondent’s wife. The letter relevantly stated:

“I am happy with answering at the Court of Appeal but I want to know why this matter at the instigation of the Law Society, NCAT and Justice Lea Armstrong has moved so far and in such a bad way when all I was doing was assisting my mother in Law in her time of need – a nice now 95 years old lady that could not help herself and wanted to live at a Salvation Army retirement village as her mother did in Port Macquarie. She wanted Nothing else.

…

I also had to look after my aged Grandmother who has now passed away so if it is asserted by NCAT and Clifford Flax that I did not respond as quickly as possible to them and that I may have been somewhat difficult, it is clearly because I have been victimised because I helped an aged Norma Sim in her time of need and my Grandmother Amanda Sideris – I did nothing else which may cause the Court of Appeal to remove me from the list of Solicitors in the Supreme court.

I take this opportunity to, in advance, thank the Court of Appeal for its assistance and I will attend the meeting on 15 July 2025 with the Court of Appeal to answer any questions asked of me.” (emphasis in original.)

70. Exhibit 4 was a letter authored by Dr Fiona Sim dated 14 July 2025 which relevantly provided that:

“I must say in absolute surprise that this matter is continuing in such a farcical manner when really it is a simple matter involving my mother and her need for accommodation as an aged lady.

…

I will also comment that Mr George Sideris when I examined him on 1 February 2023 was, as I have stated, in very good health, physically, mentally and medically and the Law Society has a report from me and 3 other doctors that he is in very good health with no issues with his health, yet your solicitor Anthony Lean challenged him on his health which was in my view unnecessary and he was found by the doctors as a very fit man and capable to be a solicitor.

…

I believe the Law Society attitude to a Solicitor of the quality of Mr George Sideris is truly despicable indeed and I will give a lot of thought to reporting you all to the press and Law Society Council for your atrocious attitude to a good man and Solicitor who has, many times helped people without a request for compensation, unlike others at Law and in the Law Society.”

This letter did not disclose that its author was the wife of the Respondent although the Court was told that they no longer live together.

71. The Respondent drew attention to the report of Associate Professor Anthony Samuels, a consultant psychiatrist, of 7 June 2023. The doctor had examined the Respondent at the Law Society’s request in May 2023 in the context of the Respondent’s application for a practising certificate. The final paragraph of the report was as follows:

“Certainly the numerous emails and other correspondence provided by Mr Sideris, the tone of these communications, the style of the communications with unusual bolding, capitalising, colours and brackets raised initial concerns in my own mind that he might be suffering from some kind of paranoid condition. However, on meeting Mr Sideris today he presents as quite a pleasant, cooperative, polite man with some underlying personality rigidity. Unfortunately in the context of his sense of not being accorded ‘respect’ and feeling aggrieved by Mr Lean's responses, it seems Mr Sideris became more and more entrenched in his adversarial and oppositional stance. I am satisfied having met with him and discussing the situation with him today that he is aware that this approach has been unproductive and ill-advised and I think he fully understands that in order to get his practising certificate approved, that he needs to fully comply with the requirements of his professional body and to communicate in a professional manner in all settings.”

72. As may be seen by reference to the correspondence to which the Tribunal referred in its Stage 2 Decision which post-dated Dr Samuel’s report (and which has been referred to above), as well as the Respondent’s correspondence post-dating the Stage 2 decision which was put before the Court by the Council in an Affidavit of Tayah Lee Stevenson affirmed 17 March 2025 and some of which has already been referred to, Dr Samuel’s satisfaction that the Respondent “is aware that his past approach has been unproductive and ill-advised and that he fully understands that in order to get his practising certificate approved, that he needs to fully comply with the requirements of his professional body and to communicate in a professional manner in all settings” has not been vindicated.

73. At this point it is relevant to make reference to some further communications made by the Respondent after the Stage 2 Decision but prior to the hearing in this Court.

74. By email dated 20 February 2025 at 9.07pm directed to Ms Stevenson and various other lawyers employed at Hickson Lawyers, the Respondent said:

“I will say that I will give you a full response by Monday next week - it is strange but I will say you have not looked at all the facts and considered the stupidity of the Law Society people and NCAT against a very capable and honest lawyer in my self .

How you can all support :

.Clifford Flax , and

. the other morons at the Law Society yet refuse to consider the detail sent to you by the Psychiatrist who supported me fully .

Well let’s have a fight and I know who will win and it will not be the Law Society and NCAT.

I suggested we just close this out as I have more important things to think about but but you want to continue the fight .

Ok let’s fight .

You will have a full response on Monday .

George Sideris

Principal

George Sideris & Associates -Business and Commercial lawyers

0402892648”

75. By email dated 21 February 2025 at 8.36am, the Respondent stated:

“As to service as below , I have not been effectively served and have no detail on any meeting .

I reject assertions that a meeting is to be held on 24 February and want this meeting moved to end of 2025 or early 2026

I am also upset with you clowns and NCAT trying to take advantage when I have more important things to consider than a meeting with NCAT .

Change this date to end of 2025 as I will not be able to attend so I will oppose any decision that is made in my absence .

…

George Sideris

Principal

George Sideris & Associates -Business and Commercial lawyers

0402892648”

76. By email dated 21 February 2025 at 9.26am directed to Ms Stevenson and others, the Respondent said:

“I have made extensive inquiries and can confirm that I have not received service of any documents .

So NCAT cannot hold a directions hearing on 24 February - as I said make in December 2025 or early 2026 .

George Sideris

Principal

George Sideris & Associates -Business and Commercial lawyers

0402892648”

77. By email dated 21 February 2025 at 5.54pm directed to the Respondent, Ms Stevenson said:

“Dear Mr Sideris

Please find attached, by way of service, the following documents:

1.    affidavit of Justin Richards sworn 20 February 2025 and filed in these proceedings today, 21 February 2025; and

2.    affidavit of Tayah Lee Stevenson affirmed and filed in these proceedings today, 21 February 2025.

We intend to rely upon the attached affidavits, as well as the affidavit of service sworn by Justin Richards filed in these proceedings on 18 February 2025, which has already been served on you, to prove that service has been effected and you have been personally served. We have attached another copy of that affidavit for ease of reference.

To be clear, our client refutes any claim that you have not been personally served with the court documents in this matter.

Further to the above, we intend to seek the orders contained within the short minutes of order at the directions hearing on Monday at 9:45am. We note that this matter is not in NCAT, but instead the Court of Appeal…”

78. By email dated 21 February 2025 at 7.08pm, the Respondent said:

“Who the bloody hell is Justin Richards - I have not been personally served so your client is a liar

Also as I said I will not be available .

Just shut this crap down

George Sideris

Principal

George Sideris & Associates -Business and Commercial lawyers

0402892648”

79. By email dated 21 February 2025 at 7.11pm, the Respondent said:

“I request that you people stop your lies - I have not been around for any service to be effected

Just be honest and cut your lawyer bullshit - I can do without it with the family issues I have to deal with .

George Sideris

Principal

George Sideris & Associates -Business and Commercial lawyers

0402892648”

80. By email dated 21 February 2025 at 7.25pm directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent said:

“As a lawyer myself I had a sense of trust in other lawyers now after all this bullshit because of ‘wankers’ at the law society I have totally changed my view.

Generally lawyers take advantage of people and they are basically arseholes and peasants that do not deserve respect of any kind

George Sideris

Principal

George Sideris & Associates -Business and Commercial lawyers

0402892648”

81. By email dated 21 February 2025 at 7.40pm directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent said:

“This is the person I am looking after and you bunch of morons want to take me to task for no reason .

Let me be nice / piss off all of you and do something more constructive

You cannot do anything more constructive as you are all pathetic lawyers that want retribution for no reason .

I was badly treated by that wanker Latham and the other wanker Flax .

I will take all action in my power on this matter and also go public so people know that the law society and NCAT are moronic groups”

82. By email dated 21 February 2025 at 9.17pm directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent said, after attaching a screenshot of a memorial service notice for a particular person:

“I have a lot more important things to think about -a very good friend at 62 died 3 days ago. And you clowns are worried about bullshit”

83. By email dated 22 February 2025 at 4.55pm directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent said, after attaching a photo of a man, “And here is the man that died / you clowns inky think about yourselves”.

84. By email dated 23 February 2025 at 9.25pm directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent stated:

“I want to reiterate again that I will not be at the meeting tomorrow at 9.00 am - I have more important things to think about ( family and personal Items ) than the ridiculous action by NCAT and the Law Society - two pathetic groups of people that do not respect the current more important issues with which I am involved.

I said I would let this matter die so I could concentrate on family issues world wide but you bunch want to continue to try and have me hurt which will not work as I will challenge any decision .

I have done nothing wrong except criticise idiots like NCAT and the Law Society.

Why NCAT and the Law Society are involved in this rubbish on a trivial matter started by Flax and Leary and the other idiots beats me .

The main thing I want to know is ‘what did I do wrong’ that caused that idiot Leary to do what he did to me and to cause me major problems .

Especially putting me through extensive work on legal education and pushed me to go to a psychiatrist.

WHAT DID I Do wrong that caused me to be crucified by the law Society .

Explain it to me as if this goes to court that is what will be asked .

1 what did I do wrong

2 who did I hurt

3 who had losses except me as I did not receive any salary and lost corporate positions because of the actions for no reason of the Law Society , NCAT and the Court.

4 why was the psychiatrist very POSITIVE on me working as a solicitor and against the law Society

5 the public has assumed I did something very wrong when all I did is question the Law Society and it’s crazy actions

6 why was Clifford Flax and originally Leary against me ???

7. Why is NCAT against me .what did I do to NCAT ????

Simply put — what did I do wrong to have my practicing certificate terminated for 8 years.

THAT IS WHAT I WANT To KNOW and what the court will ask WHEN we move to a court hearing .

So stop this bullshit and shut this matter down as I will not be available till January 2027 .

George Sideris

-Business and Commercial lawyer

0402892648”

85. By email dated 23 February 2025 at 9.43pm directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent said “I suggest you all read the attached which was provided by prof Samuels at the request of the Law society and which was rejected by the clow3n Anthony Lean”.

86. By email dated 24 February 2025 at 8.09am directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent said “I cannot attend as I am Ill myself from heart failure and I have to look after my ill mother in law - see attached”, accompanied by a photo of what appears to be the Respondent’s mother in law.

87. By email dated 24 February 2025 at 9.33am directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent said “This is me today and you clowns are more worried about NCAT / f~~~~~~K NCAT”, followed by a photo of himself in a hospital bed.

88. By email dated 24 February 2025 at 4.35pm directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent stated:

“I no want to make sure you people ( and i am being generous in my statement of ‘you people’ ) that you all understand what is said below as I was badly treated by the law Society from commencement of this matter for no reason as you will see from my statement.

I want to have a copy of what NCAT and the Law Society will present as their case against me as I have done nothing that is detrimental to the Law Society, NCAT or anybody else , except to be upset at the bullshit that is raised against me, including from Clifford Flax who has no idea on what he is doing in this case as I have done nothing detrimental to anyone and the Professor has confirmed that I am of good character and should have my practicing certificate re instated.

SHORT MINUTES OF ORDER

1. The Applicant to file and serve upon the Respondent any further evidence on which it relies by 17 March 2025.((( This will be done ))))

2. The Respondent to file and serve upon the Applicant any evidence on which he relies by 14 April 2025.((( I want clear evidence not rubbish as I have done nothing to hurt anybody and as the professor has stated , I am of very good character )))

3. The Applicant to file and serve upon the Respondent written submissions by 28 April 2025. (((( This will be done ))))

4. The Respondent to file and serve upon the Applicant written submissions by 12 May 2025.((( as I said I want clear evidence not rubbish as I have done nothing to hurt anybody and as the professor has stated , I am of very good character and I want no bullshit from Clifford Flax or NCAT ))

5. The Applicant to file and serve upon the Respondent any written submissions in Reply by 26 May 2025.(((( this will be done )))

6. The proceedings are listed for further directions on 28 April 2025 to set the matter down for hearing. ((((( thank you but I expect honesty from NCAT and Clifford Flax not bullshit and exaggeration ))

7. Liberty to restore on 3 days' notice.(((( understood )))

George Sideris

George Sideris -Business and Commercial lawyer

0402892648”

89. By email dated 25 February 2025 at 10.39am directed to the Respondent, Ms Stevenson said:

“Upon reviewing that material, the Registrar was satisfied that service of the originating process has been effected.

Further to the above, we understand a copy of the orders made yesterday have been provided to you. In any event, in accordance with order 8, the orders made yesterday are set out below:

1. The Applicant to file and serve upon the Respondent any further evidence on which it relies by 17 March 2025.

2. The Respondent to file and serve upon the Applicant any evidence on which he relies by 14 April 2025.

3. The Applicant to file and serve upon the Respondent written submissions by 28 April 2025.

4. The Respondent to file and serve upon the Applicant written submissions by 12 May 2025.

5. The Applicant to file and serve upon the Respondent any written submissions in Reply by 26 May 2025.

6. The proceedings are listed for further directions on 28 April 2025 to set the matter down for hearing.

7. Liberty to restore on 3 days' notice.

8. Applicant to notify Respondent of these orders.

9. Court to notify Respondent of these orders.

…

We also refer to your email at 4:36pm on 24 February 2025 (see below).

Our client has already served you with its supporting evidence in respect of this matter. A hard copy was provided to you when you personally served, and an electronic version of the evidence was sent to you by email on 7 January 2025. We note that you received that email as you provided a response to it. In respect of the comments you made in respect of the timetable, we note that you are the Respondent in the matter and therefore, orders 2 and 4 require you to file any evidence or submissions in this matter. Our client is the Applicant.

In respect of your comment about NCAT. This proceeding is being heard by the Court of Appeal and not NCAT. NCAT is not a party to the proceedings. We encourage you to review the originating process and evidence which has been served on you.”

90. By email dated 25 February 2025 at 11.29am directed to Ms Stevenson, the Respondent said:

“I would like you to cut the bullshit you are throwing about .DO NOT UPSET ME MORE as you people came into this at a later stage as the mess was started by the Law Society in 2018 .

Below is what is required and what will be done - I am the original applicant against the LAW SOCIETY and NCAT the aggressor that was induced by that clown Clifford Flax from the Law Society and I appeared at the first NCAT hearing in their offices in the city that was put in place by Clifford Flax ( clown).

THIS IS WHAT IS REQUIRED with me as the original applicant against the LAW SOCIETY - SO I WILL FOLLOW the below and NCAT needs , as respondent follow the requirement as well .”

91. The email continued, marking up Ms Stevenson’s above email dated 25 February 2025 at 10.39am as follows:

“Our client has already served you with its supporting evidence in respect of this matter. A hard copy was provided to you when you personally served, and an electronic version of the evidence was sent to you by email on 7 January 2025. We note that you received that email as you provided a response to it. ((((( GS : I want you to , as I said , CUT THE RUBBISH - you should read the instructions above - further I do NOT agree so GET your client to abide by the above requirements and present evidence as required - please DONOT UPSET me again as this whole matter / mess was started by the Law Society back in 2018 for NO REASON ))))

In respect of the comments you made in respect of the timetable, we note that you are the Respondent in the matter and therefore, orders 2 and 4 require you to file any evidence or submissions in this matter. Our client is the Applicant. ((( RUBBISH - I was the original applicant against the LAW Society and will respond as such )))))

In respect of your comment about NCAT. This proceeding is being heard by the Court of Appeal and not NCAT. NCAT is not a party to the proceedings. We encourage you to review the originating process and evidence which has been served on you.

You have served no evidence so stop your rubbish and follow the below . NCAT is a party and the respondent with the Law Society as they are the aggressor here and started this mess .

I asked you to talk to your client so we could just permanently shut this down and I could attend to my business with my sick mother in law and grandmother abroad BUT you refused in your arrogant way.

…

I am still prepared to shut this FUCKING mess down permanently so we can all go on with our lives with the bullshit from your firm , Law Society and NCAT.

Finally who the hell is Justin Richards”

92. In terms of the Respondent’s continuing fitness for practise, much of this correspondence speaks for itself.

Determination

93. Written and oral submissions were made on behalf of the Council.

94. The Respondent also made oral submissions and much of his Affidavit material in effect comprised submissions albeit that its admission was not the subject of any limitation. Much of the Respondent’s address was directed towards the point he had made persistently, including in the course of the Tribunal proceedings, namely that his engagement with TSA and Mr Geary was in his capacity as Mrs Sim’s son-in-law and not as a solicitor and that he was motivated to help an old lady who had helped him in the past.

95. The Respondent’s motivation may be accepted for present purposes but is not to the point. There is no doubt that in representing Mrs Sim’s interests he was acting in his capacity as a solicitor and the Tribunal so found, based upon analysis of a large number of written communications. No challenge was ever made to that conclusion either by way of appeal or by any submission to this Court which did not rise above pure assertion.

96. What was remarkable was the Respondent’s complete lack of insight in relation to the serious findings of professional misconduct that had been made against him by the Tribunal. That lack of insight was manifested in various ways, not least of which was the continuing stream of vituperative correspondence after the Tribunal’s decisions which only vindicated its findings, including as to the Respondent’s lack of insight. The lack of insight was further reinforced by the Respondent’s remarkable admission that he had not read the Tribunal’s two decisions and was “not interested” in doing so.

97. The importance of the “no contact” rule which founded the first aspect of the Tribunal’s finding of professional misconduct has already been referred to: [16] above. Adherence to that rule is fundamental to legal practice. The Respondent’s conduct was only consistent with either the absence of any understanding or appreciation of the rule or a wilful defiance of it. It is not a difficult rule with which to comply and, as the Tribunal held, the Respondent persisted in direct communication with TSA notwithstanding courteous requests that he not do so.

98. The great importance of courtesy by and between practitioners has also already been noted: see [19]-[21] above.

99. The Respondent’s conduct before, during and after the Tribunal’s two hearings has been the very antithesis of the professional courtesy that is required of legal practitioners, as reflected in r 4.1.2 of the Conduct Rules. To a large extent, the Respondent has made the case for his lack of current and continuing fitness to practice out of his own mouth as the sustained verbal barrage set out at length above makes apparent. It reveals a complete lack of understanding or appreciation of what is expected and required of a legal practitioner admitted to the Roll. It is not just that the language is consistently coarse but it also discloses a complete absence of respect for individuals, institutions and the Tribunal. The extreme lack of courtesy and understanding is matched by a wholesale absence of any self-discipline by the Respondent in his professional communications.

100. The Respondent sought to explain at least some of his language by saying he had been “under a heck of a lot of stress”, including because of his concern about his mother-in-law’s accommodation with TSA and various claimed concerns about other relatives. Even if the Respondent is given the benefit of the doubt as to the existence of such concerns, this does not come close to explaining, let alone excusing, his conduct. It is the nature of legal practice that practitioners may be interacting in the course of disputes whilst under personal or professional strain. That fact is itself connected to the importance of maintaining civility in discourse so as ensure that disputes can be managed and resolved professionally, in the interests of both clients and the community. Sometimes great personal pressure can lead to intemperate or ill-judged behaviour, later regretted, and this may be called in aid by way of explanation and mitigation. The concerns raised by the Respondent were of a vague and generalised kind. Moreover, the long period over which the Respondent’s impugned conduct has occurred undermines any attempt to rely on any such explanation. So, too, does his lack of insight or genuine remorse.

101. Beyond that, no excuse for the Respondent’s conduct has been proffered and, in point of fact, the Respondent emphasised that he had been given a clean bill of psychiatric health by Dr Samuels when examined in 2023. He also relied upon his wife’s positive medical assessment of him: see [70] above. In many respects, that makes his conduct even more egregious in that it establishes that he was not labouring under any medical condition when conducting himself as he has over the last several years. We have already pointed out that Dr Samuels’ understanding and positive prediction in relation to the Respondent in the final paragraph of his report has not been vindicated.

102. Nor is it to the point that the Respondent may be (or has in the past been) a technically competent lawyer. We infer that this was the purpose of the tender of a testimonial from Mr Jonathan Park, set out at [68] above. The Respondent’s fitness to practise is not a function of any technical competence (upon which we make no comment); rather it is a matter of whether this Court, in exercising what is a protective jurisdiction, considers that his conduct renders him unfit to remain on the Roll.

103. What emerged during the hearing as the Respondent’s attempts to evade service of these proceedings and the false statements made as to his whereabouts, his requirements for physical service in Filia, Greece, and the reasons proffered to the solicitors for the Council for his asserted absence from the jurisdiction and other priorities (see [56]-[63] above) have also factored into our assessment. This Court must insist on the maintenance of the highest standards of honesty and integrity in the performance of duties by legal practitioners: Yoon at [34].

104. Admission to legal practice and presence on the Roll of Australian lawyers is a privilege and not a right. Admission is contingent upon continuing adherence to a lawyer’s oath or affirmation sworn or made on admission to the legal profession: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Croke [2024] NSWCA 195 at [11]. That oath or affirmation, sworn or made at the outset of a lawyer’s career, is one of a continuing and critical nature and significance. The privilege of admission will be withdrawn in cases where a lawyer is established not to be a fit and proper person to continue in practice.

105. In its current form, the oath or affirmation requires lawyers admitted to the Roll maintained by the Court to undertake “truly and honestly [to] conduct yourself in the practice of a lawyer of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and faithfully to serve as such in the administration of the laws and usages of this State”. That form has not in substance changed since the Respondent’s admission to practice in 1987. The laws and usages of this State include the Conduct Rules, faithful and continuing adherence to which is fundamental to the good standing of the legal profession and to an individual’s current and continuing fitness to practice as a lawyer of this Court.

106. Breach of the Conduct Rules and findings of professional misconduct will not necessarily result in the removal of a person’s name from the Roll. That is a very serious and very public consequence for any legal practitioner. The Court is aware of the reputational consequences of this course for any legal practitioner but its responsibility is to ensure, in the public interest, and for the protection of the public, that only practitioners who are fit and proper to practise law are permitted to do so.

107. The ultimate question for this Court, as Gleeson JA recently said in de Robillard at [236], is whether the Respondent is a fit and proper person to remain on the roll. As noted above, that involves consideration of whether the lawyer is presently not fit to practise and is likely to be unfit for the indefinite future. As his Honour continued:

“Given that legal practitioners have heavy responsibilities and particular privileges which must be properly exercised in the interests of justice and of maintaining public confidence in the legal profession, the Court is concerned to ensure that only fit and proper persons, once admitted, continue in practice as officers of the Court.”

108. Regrettably, we have come to the clear conclusion, based upon the materials before us and in light of submissions made to us, including in response to questions from the Bench, that the Respondent does not meet the description of a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll. We also consider that he is likely to remain unfit to practise for the indefinite future.

109. In our assessment the Respondent’s conduct “betoken[s] unfitness to be held out by the court as a member of a profession in whom confidence could be placed”: Kennedy v The Council of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales (1940) 13 ALJ 563 at 563-564 per Rich J.

110. We would make the following orders:

1. Declare that the Respondent, Mr George Sideris, is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of Australian lawyers maintained by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, pursuant to s 22 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW);

2. Order that the name George Sideris be removed from the Roll; and

3. Order that the Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

**********

Amendments

18 July 2025 - Revision made to the reference in [21] - Garrard (t/as Arthur Anderson & Co) v Email Furniture Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 662 at 667, ".. at 667" is changed to "... at 667".

18 July 2025 - Revision made to the reference in [21] - Garrard (t/as Arthur Anderson & Co) v Email Furniture Pty Ltd (1993) 32 NSWLR 662 at 677, ".. at 677" is changed to "... at 667".

Decision last updated: 18 July 2025