Universities and Lawyers Setting Up Abuse Victims in Australia
A notable quote from below:
“…Fellow student and established psychologist Luciana Cruz and I fought Bond University for a year. We submitted complaints to every relevant organisation including the Australian Human Rights Commission. The AHRC upheld my complaint of disability discrimination and harassment and sexual harassment throughout their entire process. But the AHRC has no jurisdiction, no power – nothing. It exists to give the public a false sense of hope in justice for innocent victims. So when Bond University refused to attend AHRC conciliation, it marked the end of the AHRC’s involvement.”
The false sense of hope is the cruel as people spend their lives savings in the hope for justice to find they pay for further abuse, injustice and on a journey that ends up exposing the myth of justice.
Thoughts of Einstein come to me:
“you cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must begin anew…”
Thus abuse in the system cannot redress abuse in university (or other) systems as toxic bullying cultures have become normalised. Group think, boys clubs ensures protection.
The case below I can relate to and am familiar with the process of not being heard, victim blamed and having the right to access a fair and just process revoked. I was on a low income and discovered I was not able to get a lawyer even though I was eligible for legal aid. I was told about conflict of interest. To ask for simple representation against those in power who can manipulate the case anyway they want sets up an uneven playing field, that is not about fun I can assure you.
I realised there were no mechanisms for citizens to have abuse issues redressed fairly and proportionately. I saw how unethical many in this chain are and laughed at those who assert ethics. They would justify it as a job but it is not, every person is accountable for their actions no matter who they hide behind or stand in front of giving speeches of no substance.
I realised there were powerful connections in the legal area. I visited regulators who had time limits of 12 months (too limited) and only conciliation processes to deal with large organisations who have broken the law. In Freedom of Information it is the same situation and they charge you for the right to access your own information which in my case was not forthcoming. It was farcical. I noted I had to deal with lawyers there as well which is in appropriate in social-emotional abuse issues. They have no training and stick to the letter of the law.
The power imbalance is a class issue as the perceived poor wo/man’s an only access a regulator or tribunal court (lower) and can only provide conciliation to articulate human rights across the table from paid lawyers who know nothing of human rights, psychological/physical injury and the importance for justice to be done not seen to be done. In truth they negotiate and bargain abuse away to protect business interests. Risk management strategies determine how to lower the risk and they even have insurance in case they lose the case. So for them it is win/win, that is the setup. The victim loses on every level. It is completely the wrong forum.
Conciliation is an inappropriate process for an abuse situation. Firstly there is a power imbalance, secondly the other party is a large university in this case, they have the funds and law school, experts, a team of lawyers to mount a case, concoct or massage evidence and articulate the case in a way that only serves to further abuse.
The officers in the courts are not trained, are in positions of privilege and well connected with the power elite. Some sit on the bench deciding if a citizen is worthy to be heard, assessing if they have status or not and behind closed doors they can collude with other parties for a favourable outcome. They talk about Open Courts (transparency) in their marketing material but it appears lip service.
This type of process traumatises the person who has suffered abuse and can catalyse suicide. Justice can’t be seen to be done it MUST be done without fear or favour if integrity and a belief in the courts is to be maintained. The target has to go through a process of repeating the story over and over to people she doesn’t know, visiting a wide range of people who do nothing and find some view them as the problem person which is victim blaming. This is reflective of toxic abuse cultures in actual fact inclusive of weak regulators unable to hold the powerful to account. Political lobbyists have watered down regulation. We saw this with section 18C of the Racial discrimination Act where it is unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity. Spin came out to say it is okay to offend. Note former PM Malcolm Turnbull instigated the changes refer https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insult-offend-and-humiliate-provisions-to-be-removed-from-racial-discrimination-act
Insult, offence and humiliation is verbal abuse and bullying which is against the law here in Victoria, Australia. So to water this down gives the green light to abuse. That says something about the advocates of this. I believe there are other influences who want to legally discriminate. If society had input I am sure the levy of a ‘reasonable person’ as a benchmark would balance on the side of respect. However, the ‘reasonable person’ is excluded from political or power positions so it becomes their voice, not ours.
The reality is inequality before the law and laws drafted by those who have a vested interest in inequality. This is the visible breakdown of democratic society that should have checks and balances. It makes visible nepotism, abuse of power, corruption and a psychological disposition of privilege considering themselves above the law with no emotional capability to empathise with the target who they have harmed. Denial moves into defence and attack which furthers the abuse. I tend to not use the term victim as it suggests no power, I do not believe we have no power. I believe the silence (suppression) is where disempowerment occurs and this is the name of the game, suppress the complaint. The suppression is what causes psychological abuse of a target, as they are not heard. I know that Fiona is outraged as she is seeing the problem goes deep.
The pricing of lawyers was raised in the article as a barrier to justice and furthers structural violence (harm) to the person seeking justice as they cannot afford to be heard in a supposedly Open public court. There is also the added problem of the lawyers being complicit harbouring biased attitudes and draining he client to weaken them financially. So ethics is clearly an issue.
I have come to realise the courts are a business and influenced by external parties who have no interest in justice nor are representative of the Australian people. the moment you bring business into courts, removing the responsibility of courts from the government (as public representatives) then it becomes a profit making entity clearly favouring those with money. It is inappropriate for public sector services that require cross subsidisation across society (given unequal incomes) to be promoted as public when they are clearly private enterprises with a different mission to government responsibility. This creates the conditions for further abuse and exclusion of citizens on the basis of income. It also makes lawyers rich which creates disproportionate power in few hands and funds from the tax base directed to private interests. Another layer of corruption.
I recall standing outside the court and looking at Lady Justicia and recognising the myth of justice using the integrity of a woman. I understood why a woman was the symbol of balance as women typically are honest. I’ve done research into women in local governance and they were the outspoken ones, the men tended to adhere to authority, bury injustice and be compliant given their ambitions, hence they are easier to control. Women get outraged as they believe in fairness within contexts who see it as a joke.
It has become evident to me that there are extensive professional networks based on the status and standing who protect each other. A protection racket if you like. If they have mates in the courts or in government they can arrange to have the case sidelined. They do not understand the purpose of justice and why it is critical for what they often assert is ‘order’ but more importantly drives to the heart of Australian culture which is to Advance Australia Fair. There is a deep need for fairness and when it doesn’t occur the system breaks down. Those who are corrupt live in towers where they are unable to feel the pulse of the society, they wink and nudge each other not realising each time they commit crimes they undermine their own positions of power. People look upon them with disrespect and the real dis-illusion is to dispel with the illusion of status based on merit.
I am trained in anti-bullying and I understand the power imbalances and the importance of holding powerful people to account when they are implicated in criminal conduct. However, how can this be done with subversive attitudes of lawyers and judical officers who may themselves be involved in abuse. The nature of power seems to attract abuse as I sense they feed off the fear and deference to power. I have had the experience of being introduced to a barrister who raped his wife I was told. I was put in front of him and he did try it on with me. I was assertive and he backed off. It raised the issue for me of abuse in the court system itself by virtue of the truism ‘power corrupts ultimate power corrupts ultimately’. This speaks to no real checks and balances, these clubs existing in the legal fraternity where they know the loop holes, they know how to set another up and what I realised was those defending clients were engaging in criminal conduct not neutral professionals navigating a client through the law, they became involved in some cases. It is similar to police consorting with criminals to end up involved in criminal practices or on the pay roll. This toxic culture permeates and as it is a money game, it corrupts. That is what I learned.
In my book no-one is above the law nor are they superior to me. I know I am equal. However, positional power blocks justice as money talks.
I really felt the truth in this woman and I would say to her, she is not alone. I think many citizens have been duped into believing the Judicial system is fair (in some cases it may be but there is a problem when it is clearly not).
I say to those who know they have committed crimes, go to the person you have harmed and honestly apologise and resolve the matter and inquire into how you could help heal the situation with this other. This rebalances karma. You may laugh at that statement but I can assure you what you put out returns one way or another, it does indeed matter that you rebalance the scales of justice for your own sake. Justice is a natural alignment that occurs when codes of conduct are internalised as values and conscience moves a person. When the other is detached they feel nothing for the plight of the other, this is how perceived chaos arises in that people are no longer controlled and a judge may say ‘out of order’. The truth is they choose to take their power back. So the one detached evokes a corresponding response from life that rebalances one way or another. No mistakes.
Here is some wisdom from a child ‘stop being mean! If a child can see it why can’t you?
My last point is the privatisation of our public universities. Bond is a private university I believe funded by Alan Bond, of America’s Cup fame and who served a jail term. However, the privatisation of universities means non-disclosure documents are signed, it means they protect business interests, they are well connected, they regard citizens as irritations not equal to them, they have agenda’s that they do not want abuse cases to disrupt. Yet they disrupt people’s lives with impunity as you hear the words ‘moving forward’ justifying abuse and harm in the corridors of power. The reason privatisation is a nightmare for the community is that they cannot access FOI (or it is another conciliation process with costs), often government representatives know them personally, they can lie, deceive, omit information, hide or deny documents, employ professionals with the expertise to protect them as they build fiefdom’s with no accountability to the public. It means they can become very dangerous for public whistle blowers as powerful people feel threatened and have the power to get rid of them. There is a saying ‘failure to stop tyranny empowers tyranny’. So a blind eye, looking the other way, compliciteness based on the rationale ‘I need a job’, ‘I can’t do anything’, ‘I have no power’ doesn’t wash. All are responsible for corruption and have a hand in creating it no matter how small. They are all fine until someone does it to them. Then they cry out ‘blue murder’ at corruption. That is the irony.
May the corruption in the system be exposed and this pack of cards collapse. That is the intent I send out today.
Now to this well written and brave story by a person who needs to be heard. Her name is Fiona Bartlett I think this is the tip of the iceberg. Can you hear her, do you care? When you do care corruption stops in its tracks.
I note in her blog below she has a picture of Justice Murphy with the heading ‘The Justice Myth’, I concur and take that as a omen. The truth always rises. All ways.
The links below show how deep the rabbit hole goes. This is the real terrorism.
The Justice Myth
The only creatures that should be caged behind bars are politicians, lobbyists, and lawyers. And rapists, but I’ve already listed that three times. ― Jarod Kintz
Fellow student and established psychologist Luciana Cruz and I fought Bond University for a year. We submitted complaints to every relevant organisation including the Australian Human Rights Commission. The AHRC upheld my complaint of disability discrimination and harassment and sexual harassment throughout their entire process. But the AHRC has no jurisdiction, no power – nothing. It exists to give the public a false sense of hope in justice for innocent victims. So when Bond University refused to attend AHRC conciliation, it marked the end of the AHRC’s involvement.
I needed a lawyer.
Not one single reputable Brisbane or Gold Coast law firm would take on our cases, on the basis that they had a pre-existing relationship with Bond University. Every pro-bono legal service refused to help, despite my qualifying for their services. NSW Disability Legal Services did not respond to my request for advice for four months, well past the date of support.
Luciana located Melbourne firm Madgwicks Lawyers to run our cases. Madgwicks employed Aichen Chambers to assist. My case centred on the AHRC complaint of sexual harassment and disability discrimination against Bond University. It also involved an administrative review of AHPRA.
In return for $15,000 in legal fees, Madgwicks did nothing for Luciana Cruz, did not even write a letter.
I paid far more for the nothing I received – $34,611.80.
When Luciana first contacted Madgwicks, one of their lawyers told me that I definitely had a case. I felt confident in that person who was respectful and demonstrated experience and knowledge. But after I had financially and otherwise committed to Madgwicks, my case was given to a trainee lawyer fresh out of university. The trainee demonstrated immaturity and a lack of experience and knowledge necessary to handle my case. It slowly emerged that she knew nothing about the National Health Act, human rights legislation, or any other legislation relevant to my case. She was obviously learning on the job, and learning very slowly. I basically paid to provide a student with some much needed work experience. It would be akin to someone paying an expert specialist psychologist’s hefty fee to a psychology intern.
I never once met a senior Madgwicks lawyer nor spoke with one over the phone.
The trainee wrote one strong letter to AHPRA; however, following a secret 2.5 hour meeting with Brin Grenyer, Chair of the Australian Psychology Board (the contents of which were never disclosed to me) this confident approach was immediately abandoned. Suddenly, Madgwicks suggested that I go through with attending AHPRA’s health assessment – the very thing I was advised by my GP and Professor Phillip Morris to avoid. I wanted to challenge the administrative process leading to the health assessment, and the fact that I was not afforded due process.
I paid for a secret meeting between Madgwicks and the Chair of the Australian Psychology Board, the detailed content of which was never disclosed to me. I asked specific questions about the meeting, the trainee did not answer these. I paid for multiple secret phone conversations between Madgwicks and AHPRA – the detailed content of which were never disclosed to me, despite my asking. The trainee giggled, ‘Oh, we said a few things to each other’ – that was the extent of her mysterious feedback. I was also kept in the dark about Madgwicks’ interaction with the AHRC. All I received were basic emails documenting that a meeting had occurred, and basically what had occurred, but zero detail. Madgwicks were constantly cagey.
When I complained about this lack of service in writing, I was charged for the Madgwicks to write a lengthy, defensive letter back to me. I was also charged for the trainee to consult her employer about the writing of this letter. Consequently, I felt bullied into not questioning anything further. I had also made such a financial commitment to Madgwicks that I could not afford to go elsewhere and start again. It was at that point that I really should have pulled out before I went on to spend a year’s wages. But I pressed on in the hope of achieving a decent specialist barrister for my human rights case which my Bond University supervisor, Dr Palk, encouraged I had.
Just two weeks prior to the deadline by which I had to lodge my AHRC case with the federal court, Madgwicks located a specialist barrister at Aickin Chambers, and arranged an appointment with him. My husband and I flew to Melbourne for what turned out to be a four hour meeting. During our meeting, the Aichen barrister treated me with utter contempt. He was insulting, mocking, and he expressed a deep anger at my willingness to freely verbalise my child sexual abuse history.
The Aichen Chambers barrister suggested that I should lie and deny my child sexual abuse history, and say that I had never disclosed it to anyone. He suggested that I say that I was ‘just having a wag’ with a particular Bond lecturer and friend to whom I disclosed my abuse. I responded that I had held the same testimony for over 20 years, that I had previously reported my abuse to the NSW police, and that I was not about to change my testimony now. At this, the barrister’s ruddy face contorted into thinly veiled rage. He spat: ‘Anyone with YOUR history [of child abuse] should have their ability to work in ANY profession questioned!’
The barrister bluntly refused to look at anything that might have built my case. He refused to consider the APS definition of student as being a client and a recipient of psychological services, as documented in the APS Ethical Guidelines. I asked the Madgwicks trainee to hand me the document from my file which stated that. She flatly refused and shook her head. I demanded she locate and hand over the document. She refused again.
During that meeting, it was revealed that Madgwicks had failed to provide Aichen Chambers with a copy of the medical report for which I had paid $2,000. Professor Morris’ report was crucial to my case. Madgwicks also failed to inform Aichen Chambers that AHPRA’s mishandling of cases like mine was currently the subject of a Senate Committee Inquiry to whom I made a submission. The Senate Committee damned the Queensland AHPRA office as completely incompetent.
Madgwicks Lawyers and Aichen lawyers dismissed hard evidence against Bond – legally obtained recordings during which Bob Montgomery (Australia’s highest profile psychologist, President of the APS, and former Professor of Psychology at Bond University) had damned Bond as corrupt and capable of setting up and discrediting students as they had done me. All they had to do was call Dr Montgomery to the witness stand and Bond would have folded.
On a matter of AHPRA subjecting me to public urination as part of a psychiatric examination, the Aichen barrister laughed and mocked in a sing-song tone: ‘Well?! It comes with the territory of being a psychologist!’ No – urinalysis is not a routine part of being a psychologist. It was obviously being employed to traumatise a survivor of child sexual abuse. I had no history of substance abuse to warrant urinating in front of two strangers, possibly men.
The Aichen barrister criticised me for including some points that he said I should not have in my AHRC application. I explained that I could not find a suitable lawyer to help me with my case due to Bond University’s extensive connections. (Bond paid lawyer Malcolm Turnbull $30k per month in consultation fees). Every suitable law firms repeatedly told me that they could not take Luciana and I on since they had a conflict of interest with either AHPRA or Bond University. Most firms had been employed by Bond, or else or their students did internships with Bond. Although I qualified for legal aid with two organisations, not one firm would take my case. A Sydney disability legal advice firm failed to contact me in over three months. Bond University and AHPRA had strategically lodged their complaints against me just before Christmas when most firms were winding down for the holiday season. Further, there was an AHRC time limit on reporting the incidents.
At this explanation, the Aichen barrister he raised his voice at me: ‘Oh, don’t give me that rubbish!’ He then told me that I sounded like a notorious pain of a woman who keeps complaining everywhere about being unfairly treated by a university. ‘Look her up!’ he waved at me. (Ironically, I was criticised for not being able to find a lawyer in time, while Madgwicks had not been able to find me a barrister in time for the AHRC deadline.)
Aichen Chambers did not methodically collect my arguments against Bond University and AHPRA in that meeting. Instead, every time I mentioned something in my favour, their barrister began debating with me and shooting me down. When I mentioned a point that he could not argue against, he ignored it. Anything that I said in jest during the marathon meeting, the barrister treated literally and he used against me and in his report.
While I can perhaps understand a lawyer’s need to test out a client’s potential to withstand cross examination in a court, what the Aichen barrister did to me far surpassed anything of that purpose. I have had court training and experience as a forensic psychology student and as a parole officer in two states. I had also previously excelled under cross examination in a personal case. What the barrister did was plain derogative abuse. I effectively paid Aichen Chambers $7,700 to verbally and psychologically abuse me for four hours.
By the end of the meeting, the barrister had still not made his intentions clear. He promised to look over my material and let me know his conclusions.
I left the meeting in a state of shock and trauma over the way I had been treated and at the awful realisation that my case had been sabotaged by my own legal team. I concluded that Madgwicks and Aickin Chambers had sold me out to Bond University, AHPRA and the Psychology Board.
Aichen Chambers left me with the impression that I was dirty and worthless as a person because I had been sexually abused as a child. Their barrister compounded exactly what Bond University and AHPRA did to me in their false notification. I broke down at the airport that afternoon in front of passengers.
The subsequent report that Aichen Chambers sent me misquoted me. It excluded every point that favoured my case. The report included any and every little point that exonerated and defended Bond University and AHPRA. It twisted my words in that meeting, and included things that I did not say. For example, I never called a certain Bond University psychology lecturer psychotic as the report alleged I did. I did explain that the lecturer had threatened to commit suicide to me, my husband, and another student, and had increased her psychiatric medication without consulting a doctor.
The Aichen barrister failed to include in his report one of the clearest arguments against Bond University and AHPRA that I raised at the end of our meeting. I said to him:
‘Apart from the research incident, every allegation of ethical misconduct was supposed to have occurred during trimester three, 2009. If these incidents were so important, why did Bond University pass me in those subjects during which the breaches allegedly occurred? And why, if they so constituted grounds for notification, did Bond University psychology lecturers wait a year to report them to AHPRA? The law says psychology lecturers must notify such concerns immediately.’
The barrister was stunned to silence. Yet this point in my favour failed to appear in his final report from that meeting – as did every other point in my defence and which supported my case against Bond University and AHPRA. He manipulated information.
Aichen Chamber’s report arrived the day before the AHRC submission deadline for proceeding to federal court. This left me no time to find a second, non-abusive opinion. When I complained about this to Madgwicks they advised me that I could quickly gather together a case and lodge it within 24 hours. That was impossible. Madgwicks then charged me for this complaint phone call plus the subsequent letter from the, regarding the matter. In this letter, Madgwicks retracted their advice of personally proceeding to federal court.
For many months, Madgwicks promised me that I had a case. But then they failed to do anything to help my case. The firm gradually drained my time and resources until I had no case, and nothing to fight it with. My legal team failed to follow up on my crucial request – my professional indemnity insurance that Bond University was mandated to take out for all students. That is the very insurance that protects students and psychologists against notifications, and which covers any legal costs incurred while defending notifications. If I was not covered, then Bond University had a legal requirement to warn students to seek their own private insurance on top of the $3,500 they pay per subject. Consequently, I lost my ability to defend myself further against Bond University and AHPRA.
Another basic fact overlooked by my legal team was that because I permanently resided in NSW, I never actually fell under the jurisdiction of the offending Queensland AHPRA office. I was under the jurisdiction of NSW and their Sydney office.
A further obvious, basic step that my legal team failed to do or even consider was to contact the police ministers in NSW and Queensland, and request an investigation into the alleged police involvement in Bond University and AHPRA’s accusations against me. My lawyers did not examine a simple question: If I were a criminal, how did I possess a Queensland blue card for the past two years? I pursued this matter. NSW and Queensland Police Ministers replied that the police did not possess any record of me being a criminal, and had not told AHPRA such. Thus this proved that AHPRA had lied in their administration of the notification against me. On the basis of this lie, I was stripped of my psychology registration and ordered for a health assessment.
Yet another questionable thing that Luciana Cruz and I realised was that Madgwicks did was double-up on charges. They charged Luciana and I full price for Madgwicks’ attendance at the secret meeting with the Psychology Board in Melbourne, instead of halving the cost between two clients.
Mdgwicks Lawyers never explained or presented me with evidence of what my money was being spent on. Their trainee seemed to do the work, and she went very slowly. I was charged for their trainee to gain a basic understanding of legal concepts, concepts which someone in her position should have already known. This might help explain why I was given such poor advice, and why essential legal tasks were never done – such tasks as obtaining insurance information from Bond University. This insurance was supposed to pay for any legal costs incurred as a result of someone notifying against me to AHPRA.
I was never provided with a comprehensive itemised breakdown of costs, even when my husband and I requested a detailed invoice. I later obtained my Madgwicks file and saw evidence of two different billing records. The bill we were sent contains a list of dates and services. A second bill format that was withheld from me additionally included the author of each job task, the length of time of each job task, and the cost of each job task. I was never provided with copies of the latter. An examination of this second billing had me questioning the legitimacy of some of the recorded costs, and the expediency of the work.
A letter dated 16/3/11 from Madgwick informed me that their original fee estimate (a copy of which I was never provided) changed because ‘this matter has taken longer to complete than anticipated and has become more complex.’ The matter took longer only because their trainee did not demonstrate the basic legal knowledge needed to process it at an expected speed. The matter’s complexity never changed – except according to the trainee’s understanding of it.
The 16/3/11 letter estimated that my legal fees would be $10 to 20k. Even after this revised fee estimate, the matter far exceeded the estimated amount. I was charged $27,000 for the same work. My accountant husband and I could not justify a final, delayed bill of $7,700 for Madgwicks’ work that we received months after our last contact with their firm.
My husband and I experienced severely delayed billing with Madgwicks. We saw McNab in July 2011. We were told that the anticipated cost of consulting Aichen Chambers would be $8,500, and to place this amount in trust. We did so. Aichen Chambers was the last service we employed Madgwicks for. Four months later, in November 2011, we first received two further bills from Madgwicks that they failed to send us. In Madgwicks’ files, these are dated 6/11/11. One bill was not itemised and it was for $7,700 for Aichen Chambers’ July work (which we expected was taken out of the $8,500 in trust). We also simultaneously received a second belated bill for $7,747 for Madgwicks’ alleged work in July relating purely to Aichen Chambers’ involvement. This second bill contained no details at all of dates, a description, or anything.
Before paying the last bill for Madgwicks’ July effort, I questioned the cost of the whole exercise. Madgwicks’ told me prior to July 2011, that the brief that eventually went to McNab, had in fact been ready for many weeks. So, I could not justify $7,700 worth of work on their part.
My husband asked Madgwicks for an explanation of these two bills, and for a breakdown of costs. At first we got a letter from them detailing the work she supposedly did in July. Madgwicks accountant, Johanna Jackson, agreed that Madgwicks’ letter did not answer our question. On 14/12/11, we requested by email a full review of the costs of my whole case, which amounted to approximately $27,000 for Madgwicks Lawyers, and $7,700 for Aichen Chambers.
Again we experienced delayed service. Four months later, in April 2012, I finally got a letter from Madgwicks saying that they had reviewed my costs and had decided that the overall fees were fair.
In our final correspondence with Madgwicks, my husband wrote:
‘Since our final meeting with Madgwicks Lawyers and Aichen Chambers, Fiona has obtained letters from both the Queensland and NSW police ministers denying any contact between the police and AHPRA. The ‘police statements’ can only have been fabricated by someone at AHPRA. I would have expected this to have been found out by our lawyer. We went to you looking for someone to take on the fight for Fiona and were sadly disappointed.’
I had achieved in two simple letters to two police ministers, what Madgwicks Lawyers could not in a six-month timeframe and a $37,000 budget.
In June 2013, I submitted a complaint against Madgwicks Lawyers and Aichen Chambers to the Victorian Law Commission who (typically) denied my claim citing a lack of evidence and an exceeded six month complaint time limit.
Sections of my complaint fell within the Child Abuse Royal Commission’s terms of reference, so I submitted a complaint to them also.
As I plough through my own law degree, I continue to encounter ethical breaches committed by Melbourne’s Madgwicks Lawyers and Aichen Chambers.