Any reference to CASACIR or its directors, shareholders, owners or operators relates to pre-14 February 2024 when the company was sold. In no way can anything said relate to the company or its new owners, operators, directors, and shareholders after that sale.
The Australian Solicitor’s Conduct Rules (“ASC Rules”) and the Victorian Bar Incorporated Practice Rules (“Vic Bar Rules”) respectively stated:
1 Application and interpretation
1.1 These Rules apply to all solicitors within Australia ….
5 Except as is otherwise provided, these Rules apply to and bind all barristers.
Thereby making each legal practitioner’s compliance with the Rules non-optional but mandatory.
Each of them is guilty of breaking the law as regards to the Legal Profession Act 2004 (“LPA”) which was applicable to their conduct up until the repealing of it in 2014[1]:
4.4.4 Conduct capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct
Without limiting section 4.4.2 or 4.4.3, the following conduct is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct—
(a) conduct consisting of a contravention of this Act, the regulations or the legal profession rules; …
(c) conduct in respect of which there is a finding of guilt for—
(i) a serious offence; or …
(iii) an offence involving dishonesty.
Other legislation as well as the relevant Rules are binding and put demands on the legal practitioners’ conduct. Such rules demand, inter alia, that they not knowingly make a misleading statement to a court on any matter and must take all necessary steps to correct any misleading statement made by them as soon as possible after they becomes aware that the statement was misleading. Not one of them notified the court of any error in spite of being aware of many.
I offered KSA, Smith, Southall, Spencer, Kaye and Peake the opportunity to have a meeting, either personally, or before a mediator if they preferred, but they failed to even respond to my offer, providing, instead, a legal firm later saying that that firm represented them and that there was no interest in sitting down with me. None of them want to resolve any of this, leaving me with no option but to leave it in the court of public opinion given that it should be of immense public interest.
An integral part of all the processes were CASACIR’s legal teams:
- solicitors: Ken Smith & Associates (“KSA”), including Ken Smith (“Smith), Marcus Schivo (“Schivo”), Georgina Carson (“Carson”) and Michelle Collins (“Collins”);
- barristers: Graeme Peake (“Peake”), Barrister ABC (a short-term pseudonym required by court action) , Anthony Southall (“Southall”), Roslyn Kaye (“Kaye”) and Fiona Spencer (“Spencer”); and
- Jack Kraan (“Kraan”) (in a pseudo/quasi-legal role).
They each behaved in a manner that I believe was prejudicial to justice. I my opinion, they collaborated, colluded and conspired with the others and their clients to pervert the course of justice; they acted in what should be determined to be contempt of court.
Each of them was bound by legislation, the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules (“ASC Rules”), the Victorian Bar Incorporated Practice Rules (“Vic Bar Rules”), and the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (“LPUC Rules”) with their primary duty being to the court, and to the furtherance of justice. The demands of legislation are that, inter alia, they be honest and not act fraudulently or dishonestly, that they not assist in fraudulent actions, that they do not mislead or deceive and do not do anything that may mislead or deceive.
In blatant disregard to the law and the Rules, they each made multiple claims, denials submissions and/or addresses that had significant and known grossly erroneous content. Further, in my opinion, they actively and deliberately colluded, collaborated and conspired with others to pervert the course of justice.
The issues of Rules and ethics are well explained by Sir Gerard Brennan of the Bar Association of Queensland as follows [replacement words in the original]:
The first, and perhaps the most important, thing to be said about ethics is that they cannot be reduced to rules. Ethics are not what the [lawyer] knows he or she should do: ethics are what the [lawyer] does. They are not so much learnt as lived. Ethics are the hallmark of a profession, imposing obligations more exacting than any imposed by law and incapable of adequate enforcement by legal process. If ethics were reduced merely to rules, a spiritless compliance would soon be replaced by skilful evasion[2].
Of course, Sir Gerald talks about the ideal world, contrary to the current situations where (1) ethics were significantly diminished and/or almost entirely ignored, and (2) the Rules are skilfully evaded, as they were in their conduct toward the court and/or me.
By their conduct, they diminished public confidence in the legal profession and its perception of the administration of justice. Further, they have, by their actions, brought the legal profession further into disrepute and prejudiced my case greatly by their assistance in the production of grossly erroneous claims, denials and accusations.
Bills of costs
They have served me with a number of bills of costs. The most relevant bills are for the action in front of Pagone J and for my application under s29 of the CPA. Receiving the information contained in those bills was wonderful – I was so thankful because they proved my case. The bills proved that they had purposefully colluded, collaborated and conspired together to perpetrate enormous detrimental impacts on me and to mislead and deceive the court. See the various web pages to see some of the proofs.
[1] The entirety of all known work of Barrister ABC was prior to 2012.
[2] From The Lawyers’ Compass – your ethics starting point, in his Continuing Legal Education Lectures No. 9/92 – 3 May 1992.