Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
To cap off disciplinary action for his “grossly discourteous” language, an NSW lawyer shot off a few more barbs before he was struck from the roll, including calling some at the Law Society “wankers”.
Facing an application to have his name struck from the roll of legal practitioners, George Sideris told solicitors for the NSW Law Society that lawyers took advantage of people and were “basically arseholes and peasants that do not deserve respect of any kind”.
The email bookended a string of spectacularly offensive behaviour from the now-ousted solicitor both before and during disciplinary proceedings, such as accusing The Salvation Army (TSA) of wanting an elderly woman dead and telling the Law Society to “fuck off”.
Chief Justice Andrew Bell, along with Justices Jeremy Kirk and acting Judge John Griffiths, said Sideris’ conduct has been “the very antithesis of the professional courtesy that is required of legal practitioners”.
“To a large extent, the respondent has made the case for his lack of current and continuing fitness to practice out of his own mouth as the sustained verbal barrage set out at length … makes apparent.
“It is not just that the language is consistently coarse, but it also discloses a complete absence of respect for individuals, institutions and the tribunal. The extreme lack of courtesy and understanding is matched by a wholesale absence of any self-discipline by the respondent in his professional communications,” the bench determined.
Sideris had his name struck off and was ordered to pay costs.
The disciplinary action came about because of Sideris’ dealings with The Salvation Army and its then solicitor at Mills Oakley in relation to his elderly mother-in-law’s refundable accommodation deposit.
While Sideris was adamant he was acting only as a “caring son-in-law” and not in his capacity as a solicitor, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) found he acted as a legal practitioner between July 2021 and February 2022. Sideris also referred to himself both explicitly and implicitly as a lawyer in correspondence with TSA and its solicitor.
Sideris made persistent breaches of rule 33 under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, which identified direct contact by one party’s solicitor with the other party rather than through their solicitor as “extremely unprofessional”.
While each breach amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct, the persistent breaches – and particularly after the solicitor requested correspondence be sent to him only – meant the cumulative conduct was determined by the tribunal to be professional misconduct.
The tone of Sideris’ correspondence was found to be “grossly discourteous, coarse, disrespectful, gratuitously offensive, improperly threatening and wholly unprofessional”. The Supreme Court bench said it was “unsuited to professional communication”.
Before the matter came to the Supreme Court, Sideris’ highlights included sending pictures of middle fingers to the Law Society, an accusation that the TSA wanted to “torture” his mother-in-law, and a suggestion that its solicitor lacked knowledge because of his age.
In response to an email that contained a summons and an affidavit, Sideris said the Law Society and Supreme Court would “find out what sort of person you are dealing with” when they had his name removed from the roll. He added he would not put up with a “bunch of clowns”.
“As a lawyer myself I had a sense of trust in other lawyers now after all this bullshit because of ‘wankers’ at the Law Society I have totally changed my view,” Sideris said in another email.
Chief Justice Bell, Justice Kirk, and acting Judge Griffiths said Sideris’ lack of insight into the findings against him was “remarkable”.
“That lack of insight manifested in various ways, not least of which was the continuing stream of vituperative correspondence after the tribunal’s decisions, which only vindicated its findings, including as to the respondent’s lack of insight,” the bench said.
“The lack of insight was further reinforced by the respondent’s remarkable admission that he had not read the tribunal’s two decisions and was ‘not interested’ in doing so.”
Sideris tried to explain some of his language by saying he was under stress. Even if given the benefit of the doubt, the Supreme Court said it did not come close to explaining or excusing his conduct. The bench was also not persuaded by his otherwise competent legal career.
“Sometimes, great personal pressure can lead to intemperate or ill-judged behaviour, later regretted, and this may be called in aid by way of explanation and mitigation. The concerns raised by the respondent were of a vague and generalised kind,” the bench said.
“Moreover, the long period over which the respondent’s impugned conduct has occurred undermines any attempt to rely on any such explanation. So, too, does his lack of insight or genuine remorse.”
The case: Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Sideris [2025] NSWCA 159
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
