What’s going on? … Another precious tribunal decision protecting the home side … Suppression order for a former solicitor with health issues … Growing retinue of lawyers with psychological issues … Doom beckons if identity is revealed … Hanging by a threat … Janek Drevikovsky reports

Another naughty lawyer has convinced the Bureau de Spank that justice must be unseen to be done, with the tribunal permanently suppressing the solicitor’s name and most details of his alleged misconduct. 

The solicitor, who has promised he will never again ply the lawyer’s trade, is referred to as “DRM” throughout NCAT’s judgment, which also contains the word “redacted” 34 times. 

According to deputy president Jennifer Boland, DRM’s grave mental illness entitled him to anonymity and meant the spanking proceedings against him should be withdrawn.

In Boland’s brief judgment, we learn DRM was a lawyer of 30 years’ standing, an accredited specialist in his field and heavily involved in community activities including [redacted]. 

On [date redacted] he was declared bankrupt. 

The Law Society, we are told, took action against DRM for taking costs without issuing a tax invoice, delaying in giving a tax invoice to a client and [redacted]. 

Proceedings were launched. In the meantime, DRM fell seriously ill. The afflictions were “severe Major Depressive Disorder and co-morbid Alcohol Dependence”, DRM’s psychiatrist said. 

And the spanking procedure, where DRM was self-represented, was making things worse: 

“[His] condition has deteriorated substantially in the setting of the Law Society pursuing a claim of misconduct against him. As one can imagine, with any PTSD case, re-exposure to events that remind the patient of the original trauma reactivates trauma symptoms in a profound way.”

DRM’s own evidence was in the same vein: 

“I am hanging on by a thread and I fear the airing of confidential medical material concerning me and the evidence submitted to the Tribunal may break that thread.”

In his affidavit, he denied the charges of misconduct brought against him. He also claimed the Law Society had cancelled his practising ticket “on the grounds of mental illness”. 

A barrister friend, Mr [Redacted], also gave a reference in DRM’s support: 

“That his circumstances have been reduced largely by him succumbing to mental ill-health (in my lay opinion) is tragic and deeply regrettable.”

The Law Society agreed that the case should be withdrawn, because DRM could no longer represent himself and was at risk of suicide. 

There was also “no risk” to the public, because DRM had promised never to practise again, the Law Society said. 

Deputy President Boland granted the Law Society’s application to terminate the case. 

Then, in three short paragraphs, she agreed to a non-publication order. The case was a “special circumstance”, she said, since identifying DRM could cause “great detriment” to his mental health. 

Another kid-glove decision from the tribunal, particularly as DRM closed his practice years ago. Is there now no psychiatrist capable of treating him? Nor did Boland make mention of the effect of DRM’s conduct on his clients. 

Such blissful anonymity is a pipe dream for down-and-out drug users and other petty crooks facing the Local Court, whose names are published daily in the Murdoch-owned Smellograph. 

However, under the NCAT Act, the tribunal can clamp down merely where it is “desirable” to do so “for any … reason”. 

In any case, quick-and-easy suppression is fast becoming the norm in spanking matters, especially when naughty briefs and solicitors are involved: 

A barrister who told a female clerk to “suck my dick”

Three suppressed cases, including one solicitor who stole money from retirees

Mr XX and firm ZZZ Pty Ltd trading as ZZ