by Paul Cutler | Mar 1, 2026 | Uncategorized
When I think of practitioners who are struck off the roll, I usually think of some kind of serious dishonestly or financial fraud or stealing of client money. So, I was a little surprised to read that someone had been removed for: “grossly discourteous, coarse, disrespectful, gratuitously offensive, improperly threatening and wholly unprofessional” conduct. I have blogged several times about cases where there has been unnecessarily aggressive correspondence. The case of Mr Sideris is next level and was done by someone with more that 40 years experience who should have known better.
How did it start?
Like all good stories it started innocently enough. Mr Sideris was attempting to help his 93 year old mother in law in a dispute with the Salvation Army (“TSA”) over a Refundable Accommodation Deposit for aged care accommodation. The solicitor acting for TSA wrote to Mr Sideris (6 times) requesting that all correspondence be directed through his office. Sideris ignored this repeatedly and kept corresponding directly with TSA.
Rule 33 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 is sometimes known as the “no contact” rule. The rule has existed in some form since at least 1847 and is clearly not an obscure rule that was unknown to Mr Sideris. It’s purpose is to make sure that the legal matters are conducted properly through the solicitors.
The emails
Initially Mr Sideris’s emails told the TSA solicitor that was “pissed off” and wanted the solicitor to “test my patience no more.” Email after email was filled with profanities, personal insults, threats, and baseless allegations. TSA was accused of wanting the mother in law to “wither and die” and to “torture” her “to the end” and warned that “the way things are going she will die soon and it will be your fault”.
Mr Sideris also helpfully informed the TSA solicitor that he had “been a lawyer when you were in nappies,” suggested he needed to “grow up,” and in one memorable sign-off noted that he could “say f––k off but I am too much of a gentleman.” In yet another email, Mr Sideris demanded TSA’s solicitor to “cut this legal bullshit and let common sense prevail,” before signing off with a *Dirty Harry* reference: “So with respect, grow up mate … GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY.”
NCAT
It was ultimately the no contact issue and the tone of the emails sent by Mr Sideris which resulted in a complaint being made and the matter going to NCAT.
NCAT found him guilty of professional misconduct and recommended his removal from the Roll. Rather than seeing the error of his ways, this caused an escalation in behaviour. Correspondence to the Law Society, Hicksons Lawyers, and the Tribunal itself ran to nearly 400 pages — a remarkable volume of output for a man who would later tell the Court of Appeal he had not read either of the Tribunal’s decisions and was “not interested” in doing so. He referred to NCAT as “a bunch of idiots hiding behind a Govt banner,” described the Stage 1 decision as “a load of shit,” and sent emails to the Law Society and Tribunal that attached, for clarity, images of a middle finger.
The Greek Village Gambit
This is one of my “favourite” parts of this story. When the Law Society commenced proceedings in the Court of Appeal in late 2024, Mr Sideris refused to accept service by email, signing off that email with “piss off all of you,” and followed it up seven minutes later with a second email stating simply: “Again — simply put … piss off all of you.” When asked to confirm his address for service, Sideris replied that documents should be physically delivered to him at “Filia Village, Filia Greece” — a village in the Peloponnese — as he would be “absent and on the road for over 2 years.”
He was actually questioned about this by Bell CJ in the C of A. He admitted that he had lived in Filia when he was 4 years old and that the last time he visited there was in the 1980’s. Apparently Filia is now deserted. Perhaps not surprisingly, the Court found this was a deliberate attempt to obstruct service.
The Decision – struck off
The Court — Bell CJ, Kirk JA, and Griffiths AJA — had no difficulty concluding that Mr Sideris was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll, and was likely to remain so indefinitely. His purported apology, offered shortly after the Stage 2 NCAT Decision, had been rendered entirely hollow by the sustained torrent of abuse that followed it. The Court observed in its own understated way that the correspondence “betoken[s] unfitness to be held out by the court as a member of a profession in whom confidence could be placed.”
Mr Sideris was removed from the Roll, and he was ordered to pay the Law Society’s costs.
If you want to read the whole story start with Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris [2025] NSWCA 159
by Paul Cutler | Jan 21, 2026 | Uncategorized
Blog inspiration can come from diverse sources. In the lead up to Xmas, I was having a lazy afternoon at home with local ABC radio (which I think was broadcast nationally) on the in background. The guest being interviewed was a food safety expert who was advising on things like how long you can leave the turkey or ham or other food out of the fridge or how long is it safe to eat the leftovers etc etc
The discussion turned to taking (transporting) food to the Xmas BBQ. There was a text message from a listener along the lines of “can I take roadkill to a BBQ”. The immediate response from the expert was “That’s a very Northern Territory question”.
It turns out the short answer is “yes” you could take roadkill to a BBQ provided it was really fresh. There are some fairly obvious health risks if its not “really fresh” and I’ll spare you the details of how bodies commence decomposition and whether you should “gut” the carcass.
However, then there were some follow up text messages effectively saying it was illegal to pick up roadkill. It turns out that this is correct. In NSW it is the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 which applies and I note the following:
- Section 2.5(1) makes it an offence to deal in (or attempt to deal in) a protected animal or plant;
- All native mammals (except dingos) are protected animals (see Schedule 5);
- Section 2.5(2)(d) makes it clear that “deals in” includes “possession” (which has the same meaning as in the Crimes Act); and
- the section applies “whether or not it is a living animal or plant”
So, possession of native animal roadkill could make you liable for a tier 4 monetary penalty. A tier 4 penalty for an individual is $22,000 (see 13.1(5)(d)). That probably covers most kangaroos and common roadkill.
The fines get higher and the threat of imprisonment looms if you picked up a threatened species or an animal that was part of a threatened ecological community.
So, food safety issues aside, picking up roadkill for a BBQ could be quite an expensive exercise!
Creative commons acknowledgment for the photograph.
by Paul Cutler | Nov 29, 2025 | Uncategorized
Many ancient civilisations had no issues with the burial of pets with their owners. This was (arguably) not the case in NSW up until 1 September 2025.
I probably shouldn’t have been surprised to discover that there are some complicated laws and regulations which govern burials and cremations in NSW. It’s not that difficult to imagine that burial and public health were important issues in the early days of the NSW colony, particularly when the average life expectancy was around 50.
In more recent times, burial and cremation is regulated by the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act (2013). The principal concept at the heart of that Act is the “internment right”. Without exploring the detail of the grant (including renewals and re-use), content and transfer of internment rights (perhaps there’s another blog post brewing), an interment right relates to the interment of “human remains”
Human remains means “bodily remains” (also a defined term) which means “means the whole or any part of the body of a person who has died (whatever its physical state may be) but does not include the whole or any part of a body that has been cremated.”
Apart from interment rights, Reg 90 Public Health Regulation 2022 deals with the burial of a body in a coffin and the upper surface of the coffin must be not less than 900mm below the surface soil level. Body is also a defined term for the purpose of that regulation and it means “means the body of a dead person, but does not include the cremated remains of the person“.
So far, there’s nothing about burial of animals, apart from the remarkably similar information which appears in the fact sheets published by the Department of Primary Industries and also by Wildcare Australia. Basically, licensed landfill, burial, composting and burning are the preferred methods. Knackeries are another option for larger animals (although transporting the carcass might be an issue). Wildcare has some helpful tips on “how do I know it’s dead?”. I don’t think I will be checking for reptilian heartbeats or respiration any time soon.
The point of all of this is there is nothing which says anything about burying animal remains in human cemeteries. There are pet cemeteries and apparently for many years some cemetery operators turned a blind eye to be requests for pets to be buried with their owners. That was until 1 September 2025 when an amendment proposed by the Animal Justice Party saw the insertion of s69A into the Cemeteries and Crematoria Act. That section provides: “To avoid doubt, this Act permits the placement and burial of animal remains in an interment site to the extent to which the placement and burial is not inconsistent with another Act or law.”
So, now it’s legal if you want Fido or Toto (or whatever your favourite pet’s name was) to be buried with you. Another first world problem solved.
Creative commons acknowledgement for the photograph.
by Paul Cutler | Oct 31, 2025 | Uncategorized
Just as I was sitting down the other night thinking about a blog topic for this month when I received an email from Jamieson Louttit of JLA Insolvency….
JLA had written a letter to the lawyers acting for a company in liquidation which was currently pursuing litigation in the Victorian County Court. The letter which was cc’d to the commercial registry of the court (where the said litigation was being conducted) started with the (unremarkable) “Dear Sir/Madam”.
What wasn’t expected was a response from the court which included: “Good afternoon,
Please note that ‘Dear Sir’ is no longer considered an appropriate manner in which to address the Court. Instead, you may use the respectful and inclusive alternatives of ‘Dear Registrar’ when addressing the Court Registry and ‘Dear Associate’ when addressing the chambers of a judicial officer.”
JLA quickly pointed out that technically the letter had been written to the parties and the court had only been cc’d (FYI). A copy of the firm’s Guidance on the “The Great Salutation Debate” was provided to the registry officer concerned. That document included:
The History (The Sensible Bit)
The salutation “Dear” followed by a title or name has been a long-standing convention in English letter writing since the early 19th Century (i.e. 1800s). Yes, over 200 years.
The specific phrasing “Dear Sir/ Madam” emerged as a polite generic greeting when the writer didn’t know the recipient’s identity, gender or title. “Dear Sir/Madam” has carried business letters bravely through time, even before the NSW Government Gazette (Insolvency index) (circa 1840), Australian Overland Telegraph (circa 1872), fax machine (circa late 1960) and long before email ate our attention spans.
Our Position (The Practical Bit)
We like “Dear Sir/Madam.” It works. It’s polite. It avoids guessing someone’s identity based on cryptic email signatures or emojis.
Why Not Change It? (The Reality Bit)
Some places, like government and other firms, have been experimenting with elaborate new rules addressing letters (one being an 11-page guideline) and wanting new forms of address. That is entirely their choice and that is perfectly fine … for them. We remain proudly efficient and choose not to consult a flowchart before saying hello; “Dear Sir/Madam”.
Final Notes (The Cheeky Bit)
We are here to get work done, not rewrite society. So, let’s keep our greetings simple, traditional, and wrapped in good manners. “Dear Sir/ Madam”
My conclusion is that I am becoming (my family would say already become) a grumpy old man. I agree that some of this political correctness seems to go a bit too far. Don’t get me started on personal pronouns!
Creative commons acknowledgment for the photograph.
by Paul Cutler | Sep 30, 2025 | Uncategorized
When a judgment starts with “several remarkable things happened in the Dubbo Local Court that day” it’s a fair indication that it’s blog worthy.
The case involved a Mr Peckham who was arrested for a breach of an ADVO at around 10:50am. He was bail refused and appeared in the Local Court at Dubbo by video link at 2:44pm. Some 3 minutes later, his case was over and he was released from custody. Hamill J in the Supreme Court (see Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Peckham [2022] NSWSC 713) described the proceedings as a travesty.
The following occurred:
- There was no Prosecutor present, either in the courtroom or via a video link, at any stage of the proceedings. In fact the Prosecutor became aware of the proceedings at 3:06pm when she was notified that Mr Peckham was ready for release;
- the Magistrate had no court papers. His Honour had no Court Attendance Notice or Facts Sheet and did not have access to Mr Peckham’s criminal history;
- The Magistrate gave no reasons for disposing of the case under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). In fact it appears that the Magistrate (after hearing from Mr Packham about his job and his “L plates”) said: “Well I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. Give you a break. Record a conviction and send you on your way.”
- Mr Peckham was represented by a solicitor from the ALS who had commenced practice just a few weeks earlier, who was barely given the opportunity to be heard. All she was able to say as to the appropriate penalty was “[t]he defence would be asking for a fine only punishment”; and
- While the ALS solicitor agreed with the proposition that the case could be “finalise[d]”, it was not explicitly stated that Mr Peckham was entering a plea of guilty. This occurred in the absence of both the defendant himself and the Prosecutor.
The DPP appealed the decision on the basis of failure to give procedural fairness and lack of reasons.
In relation to the lack of reasons, his Honour noted that: “This is not a case where there was any debate about the contents of the reasons or whether they were adequate. There are many cases resolved in the conduct of busy Local Court lists where brief, even scanty, reasons may suffice.”
However, his Honour did have some kind words for the ALS solicitor. At [15]:
15. The ALS solicitor said in her affidavit: “It happened very quickly, and I had trouble keeping up with what was being said between Magistrate Wilson and Mr Peckham. I did not interject in what was happening because I did not want to disrespect the Magistrate and because I was nervous.”
16. Her affidavit also indicates that she was 22 years old at the time and had only been practicing for a few weeks. There is some irony in the fact that a 22-year-old solicitor did not intervene because she did not want to disrespect the Magistrate’s office, while the senior holder of the office seemed prepared to disrespect the entire, if ephemeral, process.
Several remarkable things indeed!
Creative commons acknowledgment for the photograph.
When I think of practitioners who are struck off the roll, I usually think of some kind of serious dishonestly or financial fraud or stealing of client money. So, I was a little surprised to read that someone had been removed for: “grossly discourteous, coarse, disrespectful, gratuitously offensive, improperly threatening and wholly unprofessional” conduct. I have blogged several times about cases where there has been unnecessarily aggressive correspondence. The case of Mr Sideris is next level and was done by someone with more that 40 years experience who should have known better.
