Our field agent Anthony Kanaan recently explored the hot button issue of “fit & proper”. 

Clearly large-scale overcharging or otherwise helping yourself to someone else’s money will usually upend a lawyer for failure to jump through the fit & proper hoop. 

However, industrial scale sexual harassment, creepy, sleazy and lewd, conduct, non-payment of wages, breaches of the uniform bar rules, and findings of unprofessional conduct and professional misconduct are not an impediment to fitness and propriety if the bipolar defence gets up. 

So it is with de-ticketed Sydney barrister Charles Waterstreet, who the council of the bar association would like to see properly birched. 

NCAT, at the first stage, found that the clownish brief: 

•  Showed his research and administrative assistant a pencil drawing of a flaccid penis, saying: “this is a drawing of my beautiful penis”. In fact, it turned out not be his penis, so we don’t know if his own member is beautiful or not. 

•  Showed a pornographic video to his female research and administrative assistant – falsely claiming it was in connection with a legal case he was working on. 

•  Said to his research assistance in relation to a client’s female partner, “I want to rub her all over”. 

•  Emailed his assistant a photo of a man wearing “revealing underwear”. 

•  Failed to pay his assistant, a law student dependent on the income, accumulated wages of $1,580. 

•  Asking his assistant to admire a photo showing the “arse” of a lingerie clad woman. 

•  During an interview showing a black vibrating sex toy to another applicant for a position in his chambers. 

•  Introducing a client to the second complainant as “a porn star [who has] the biggest cock in Australia”. 

•  Telling the complainant during her job interview that female orgasms are “more volcanic” than men’s. 

•  In a lift at Culwulla Chambers with four other men and one woman he asked a young female legal assistant from a law firm “which of us would you prefer”?

The tribunal (Judge Cole from the District Court, H Dixon SC and general member M. Bolt) variously found that this amounted to sexual harassment, unprofessional conduct and professional misconduct. 

Waterstreet: passed the character test

However, the psychiatrists were on hand to diagnose that his “over-disclosing … flippancy … over-familiarity … [and] problems with self-regulation” all came down to a bipolar disorder, circadian rhythm sleep problems, and obstructive sleep apnoea.

Waterstreet had previously been diagnosed with ADHD. The identification of the bipolar issue was a new discovery and the psychiatrists explained that because of it Waterstreet could not really help his uncontrolled over-sexualised behaviour. 

The doctors said they were unable to attribute his offending to his character therefore NCAT declined to find that he is not fit and proper. 

His actual character was different from the bipolar affected creepy character. The offending wasn’t really him – it was his psychiatric condition at play. 

There have been some improvements in his mental state, but one of the consulting psychiatrists said there is “still a way to go”. 

Currently the patient is taking Dexamphetamine, for attention deficit hyperactivity; Cymbalta, an anti-depressant; Lamotrigine, a mood stabiliser; and Zopiclone, a night sedative.  

In New Zealand there was a recent case where an applicant for admission to the bar got a “certificate of character” from the Law Society – having previously done jail time for violent threats and a sex offence with a girl aged 14, when he was just shy of 17.

Round two dealing with the penalty for Waterstreet is set down for August 12 and 13. 

In response to the findings Waterstreet told The Sydney Morning Herald: 

“The tribunal rejected the Bar Council’s submission that I was not a fit and proper person to be a lawyer. 

In effect, you are doing what many abusive institutions practice, that is blaming a mentally challenged person, who at the time, suffered undoubted mental health problems. 

You and all media outlets should read the brief you have in front of you, not skim, not create ‘news’ that is misleading, corrupt, malicious.”

Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Waterstreet 

We’ve thoughtfully assembled some of Justinian’s previous reports covering a few of the earlier escapades of the professional rake: 

Correspondence from lofty, and other, sources – plea for money 

Porn barrister’s #MeToo moment – Q and A drama with sexual harassment experts, involving the bar council intervention

Tragic comic – calling for help via Facebook to write a Sun-Herald article 

A right Charlie – $420,000 tax debt … failure to show and the District Court 

As the actress said to the barrister – property dispute with Kate Fitzpatrick  

Librarian’s lament – see Waterstreet down – murder trial jury discharged after Waterstreet’s opening address 

Portraits of the law – see Watch out – promoting watches.  

And more … 

The Waterstreet Portrait Gallery