Lawyer’s ‘outrageous’ suggestions draw ire of senior judge, Chief Justice

An application to amend his orders also requested that a Supreme Court justice and two Court of Appeal judges be required to also show cause as to why they should not be disciplined.

The lawyer, known by the pseudonym Mr Lietzau, made similar claims of the state’s former attorney-general and the lawyers who appeared for his ex-wife and the Legal Aid Commission of WA.

In finding the claims to be “gratuitous and without foundation”, Chief Justice Quinlan said there was no evidence to support Mr Lietzau’s contention the legal practitioners have “done anything other than faithfully and diligently discharge their duties to the court”.

“The suggestion that any of the lawyers acting for Ms Lietzau … acted inappropriately must be specifically rejected,” the Chief Justice said.

“That those allegations were made by a person who remains an officer of this court, and that they were only withdrawn at the hearing of the appeal, was, to say the least, unbecoming of such an officer.”

Justice Thomson said the claims appeared to have been made “in terrorem” – or by way of threat or intimidation – to prevent the practitioners from mounting arguments, and the judges to adopt those arguments, that were contrary to his own position.

VIEW ALL

“Although the appellant assured the court at the oral hearing of the appeal that he had acted in good faith in making these claims, they should not have been made,” Justice Thomson said.

Justice Thomson added that Mr Lietzau’s conduct in making the claims represented “a gross abuse of the legal process” and “fell well short of the standards expected by this court of enrolled practitioners”.

Mr Lietzau sought judicial review of the Family Court judge’s decision to dismiss his anti-suit, which had been filed after Ms Lietzau was granted an interim family violence restraining order.

He also pursued a judicial review of a Magistrates Court decision to dismiss his application for a stay of the restraining order.

Ms Lietzau was granted the interim order on the basis Mr Lietzau had made over 50 complaints about her to the Legal Practice Board and the Legal Services Complaints Committee, which she considered to be a form of psychological and emotional abuse and coercive control.

Chief Justice Quinlan said it was regrettable Mr Lietzau’s conduct had prevented the final determination of the restraining order.

“The courts must be vigilant to ensure that their processes are not used as instruments of oppression and coercive control,” he said.

“For this reason, the interests of justice demand that this appeal be determined today and be determined by dismissing the appeal.”

Citation: Mr Lietzau (a pseudonym) v Berry [No 3] [2026] WASCA 35.