ALECOMM

NSW Law Society Needs to Ensure Legal Bullying is NOT ALLOWED

Details

Category: Uncategorised

Created: Sunday, 04 April 2010 16:30

Written by Alecomm

The NSW Law Society exists for, among many reasons, to keep an eye on our professional legal staff.  The exist so they can reprimand legal professionals when their standards of practice fall below what is reasonably expected from a legal professional person, and they are there to monitor and review complaints from persons whom have used these services and found them unacceptable.

However, recent cases argued in the NSW District Courts regarding child protection matters show that putting in a legal complaint, whether justified or not, opens you to a world of bullying in the court room by not only the solicitor you complained about, but by their buddies also, whom may be representing another party.

The case we are referring to involves two legal professionals, one a solicitor and one a barrister.  Mr Marx, whom the original complaint was made about is the Independant Legal Representative, paid by the state, to represent the best interest of the child.  The other legal professional is a Barrister, Michelle English, and she is the Crown (DOCs) Solicitor.

 The original complaint was about Mr Marx, amongs other things, falling asleep on the bench, whilst apparently "representing the best interest of the child".   The Law Society asked Michelle English if that during these proceedings did she see Mr Marx doing anything improper (to the effect of).

Now one would expect a pretty plain answer, either yes, or no.  BUT what was sent to the Law Society in return was almost a foot thick document that not only included a whole transcript of all the proceedings concerned, but a personal reference for Mr Marx stating that in her opinion this, and her opinion that ... talk about pissing in your pockets, this woman might as well have said it didn't matter what Mr Marx did she was not for one second not going in to bat for him.

How extremely disgusting and unethical for a barrister, particularly female, to act in the manner she did.  In one breath she said she could see him and was paying particular attention because he was representing the child and in the next breath she said she couldn't see him all the time so she didn't know what he was doing.  But it didn't stop there, she also went on to say how wonderful he was, and how good he was and how professional.

For gods sake, this guy admitted to the Law Society he had his eyes closed!

Then Ms English took the time to attach copyright documents from other organisations (completely irrelevant to the matter at hand), and to take the time to write these organisations off, Alecomm being one of them and Altnews the other.  What the hell this has to do with the complaint I will never know.  The fact that she also attached documents and sent those to the Law Society is illegal according to the Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988

But wait!  There's still more!  Ms English and Mr Marx were due in court against the complainant a few weeks later, and instead of arguing the matter at the best interest of the child, whom they have seen the photos of all the abuse this child is to this day suffering, and the fact that there are copious amounts of lies and ambiguities (as per normal) written by the DOCs staff that neither side (in the best interest of the child) seem to want to address, they spent their well paid tax payers time arguing that this maternal relative of this boy is an inappropriate person to have contact with the said boy because they have seeked help and support from other organisations.  They also spent their time complaining to the judge how they are going to sue for defamation Alecomm, even though Mr Marx admits to having his eyes closed during court.

To add insult to injury, the judge in the matter let these personal attacks be the main modum operandus for both the crown and child representative objecting to the parents and grandparents having contact with the child, which i might add was 3 days per week, and half way through a restoration plan until docs decided they didn't want to play ball any more, and Judge "Not to be Trussted" gave sole custody of the child to the state until he is eighteen years of age, and the mother six times per year.

What is the Law Society going to do about this?  They are responsible for these personal attacks being made after the victim complained about the lack of professionalism being provided for her grandchild by the state paid child representative Mr Marx.  And look what has been allowed to happen.  I am also wondering how highly Mr Marx holds himself given that he can sit in a court room of which we are not allowed to wear hats as it is disrespectful to the judge, yet he is allowed to have his eyes closed.