Please help us demand reform of the legal profession in NSW!

For twelve years, the Roche Group (the defendants), and their lawyers, Clayton Utz, with protection from the Courts and the Office of Legal Services Commission (OLSC), have successfully prosecuted an unmeritorious case in the NSW Supreme Court. They have crippled us financially and destroyed our small business. The Roche Group and Clayton Utz have employed extreme tactics to prevent us from receiving our contract entitlements.

The legal profession should be subjected to the same probity, accountability and transparency that they impose on other people and professions.

We want the citizens of Australia to make a stand on this issue, because unless you are wealthy or qualify for legal aid, legal advice and protection under the law is a myth and largely inaccessible.

If you believe that everyone has a right to live life free of corruption, and that the rich and powerful should be held accountable and subject to the same rule of law as everyone else:

 and

• If you or someone you know:
• as a small business owner, or an individual, has experienced a big company exerting its power over you, to deceive or defraud you, so that they can steal your money or your assets.
• has had a lengthy legal matter where lawyers have invoiced high fees.
• has been to court, or involved in a legal matter, and the lawyer(s) has not followed instructions, or presented evidence adequately, to lose your case or disadvantage you.
• has ever suffered an injustice at the hands of the legal system.
• has ever filed a complaint against a lawyer with the NSW Office of Legal Services Commissioner and the complaint has been dismissed or described as misconceived.

Please sign and forward this petition!

In 2007 - eight (8) years ago - the legal profession regulator, NSW Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, (OLSC) received the first of fourteen (14) complaints of misconduct and criminal breaches against lawyers and counsel acting on each side of this case, and for the past eight (8) years, the OLSC and the Law Society of NSW has either dismissed or suspended all of the complaints, contrary to it’s obligations under Section 730A of the Legal Profession Act 2004.

The four dismissed complaints lodged in 2007 and 2009 include:

• That the defendants lawyers, Clayton Utz, unduly influenced a witness, a former director and current shareholder of the plaintiffs’ - who the defendants’ paid to give evidence against his own company. He gave Clayton Utz personal and company documents sourced from the plaintiffs’ alleged stolen computer server. He previously denied he had possession of the documents (2006). The witness admitted to his actions at trial in 2011, but the Court ignored the evidence and transcript. We requested that OLSC reopen the dismissed complaints and forwarded court transcript, but it failed to respond.
• That in December 2005, the plaintiffs’ lawyers removed the most critical document in evidence from the case files - their original profit (sharing) deed  - and left the document with a forensic examiner for over three years; simultaneously grossly overcharged and demanded the plaintiffs’ deposit a large amount of money in trust for a hearing that wasn’t booked for another five (5) years. There is also strong evidence of collusion between the plaintiffs’ & defendants’ lawyers in 2006 / 2007. An OLSC review of this dismissed complaint has been suspended.

The ten suspended complaints lodged between November 2013 and April 2015 include:   

• That the defendants’ lawyers’ Clayton Utz replaced the critical document profit deed (Annexure “T”) with a false document in the Court Book for the trial commencing in February 2011.
• Evidence of collusion between the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ lawyers & counsel to secure both the defendants’ victory in their Security of Costs Application and to prevent the plaintiffs’ from continuing with their case in the NSW Court of Appeal in late 2013.  

The Office Of Legal Services Commission protects lawyers from complaints of unsatisfactory and professional misconduct, and directs complainants on a path to failure and financial ruin by advising them to seek negligence claims through the courts. The OLSC rarely prosecutes lawyers, and never pursues the large law firms. The OLSC highest compensation award in exceptional circumstances is only $25,000.

Although you pay your lawyers and barristers hundreds of dollars per hour, they are permitted by the OLSC and Courts to make mistakes for which you, not them, will suffer the consequences. Once a lawyer has spent all your money and depleted your assets, the OLSC then suggests that you sue them by hiring another lawyer - on the grounds that the OLSC was not established as an alternative to the court system. Even if you could raise the funds for another lawyer to sue your previous lawyer, your chances of success are as rare as being awarded $25,000 compensation from the OLSC for a finding of professional misconduct.

Our fourteen (14) complaints are evidence that the OLSC is protecting the legal profession and not the public, and that the NSW legal profession is in urgent need of reform. Lawyers should not be permitted to demand high fees and be unaccountable to their clients with the protection of the legal industry regulators and the Courts. Our experience is that corruption in the NSW law industry is so endemic it deserves investigation by a Royal Commission.

 We are now self-represented appellants in the High Court of Australia.

 The evidence supporting this petition is all on the public record.