Despite already being in hot water for allegations made against three lawyers, a married pair of solicitors have made a number of other far-fetched claims in an attempt to recover their practising certificates.
Married legal duo Marie Odtojan and Artem Byrl, from Odtojan Byrl Lawyers, lost their judicial review of the NSW Law Society’s May 2025 decision to refuse to renew their practising certificates, having found neither was considered to be a fit and proper person.
Odtojan also challenged the appointment of a manager to their firm.
The renewal decision followed two referrals from the NSW Court of Appeal for making “baseless and improper” allegations about three of Odtojan’s former lawyers, including a claim they conspired against her and engaged in “fraud and collusion” to obtain an adverse judgment.
While Odtojan signed her own written submissions, Byrl appeared as a McKenzie friend, played a substantial role in drafting the written submissions, and took professional responsibility for them.
In July 2023, Justices Mark Leeming and Jeremy Kirk said the referrals were appropriate “given their reiteration of serious allegations without any apparent proper foundation and the apparent misunderstanding of Odtojan and Byrl of their obligations as legal practitioners”.
According to the NSW Supreme Court’s decisions, both published on Wednesday (4 February), Odtojan and Byrl were invited by the Law Society’s director of the Professional Services Department (PSD) in July 2024 to submit why their renewals should not be refused.
In response, Odtojan and Byrl accused the PSD director of using her position and delegated powers “to influence the council and to prevent [their] practising certificates from being renewed on the false premise that [Odtojan and Byrl] had engaged in misconduct”.
The letter also called for the PSD director’s removal on the basis she had allegedly “demonstrated partial and corrupt conduct”, and claimed the Court of Appeal Justices had impermissibly conducted a re-hearing of baseless and frivolous claims “by ambush”.
Further claims about the director’s alleged misconduct were included in Odtojan and Byrl’s joint letter to various people within the Law Society, including the president and members of the council.
They raised this and the alleged “ambush” in a letter to the Attorney-General, along with a claim that the Justices “have intimidated, threatened and referred a victim and two witnesses to be subject of investigation” by the Office of the Legal Services Commission.
The director sent a further letter in March 2025 that invited Byrl to make submissions about statements made on the firm’s social media and website. This was met with claims that the director made “unclear, unfounded and unsubstantiated” allegations against them.
In the same response letter, Odtojan and Byrl also accused the deputy director, the PSD and the council of engaging in an “unlawful targeted discriminatory hate crime and fraud” against them.
In a 30 May 2025 letter, Odtojan and Byrl were informed that the council had considered neither was fit to hold a practising certificate.
In a written statement of reasons, the council described their persistent allegations as “extremely serious” and that such conduct has a “strong tendency to be destructive of the relationship of mutual confidence and trust between the court” and the legal practitioner.
In addition to dismissing their grounds of review, acting Judge john Griffiths made adverse comments about Odtojan’s and Byrl’s claim the renewal decision relied on “untested judicial commentary”.
“Those claims reveal a surprising lack of comprehension on the part of an experienced legal practitioner as to the significance of concerns expressed by judges regarding the conduct of legal practitioners in legal proceedings,” acting Judge Griffiths said.
Given the council alerted Odtojan and Byrl to these comments when it invited them to make submissions about the renewal decision, acting Judge Griffiths said there was “simply no basis” for either to pursue this part of the procedural fairness complaint.
Odtojan’s case: Odtojan v Law Society of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 23.
Byrl’s case: Bryl v Law Society of New South Wales [2026] NSWSC 22.
