Later in his oral submissions, Kuksal claimed some of the more salacious allegations were made by a lawyer previously disciplined by the board. While Lawyers Weekly has currently refrained from naming this lawyer, it can reveal that he was penalised in 2021 for contempt of court.

This lawyer was among many “high-profile lawyers” Kuksal claimed were prepared to give evidence against the board. Another lawyer was allegedly threatened by the board to withdraw.

Kuksal said he has “started a community online” where almost all high-profile disciplinary cases, including those who received suspensions, were “giving us details about their cases and documents”.

Justice Elizabeth Bennett warned the proceedings would not “turn into a roving royal commission”, but did flag that she had a previous professional connection with one of the lawyers named by Kuksal. A decision has yet to be made, but the connection may warrant recusal.

Kuksal told Justice Bennett her work as a silk with the board and commissioner would also allegedly draw an improper inference, including a favourable opinion of commissioner Fiona McLeay.

VIEW ALL

Then, apparently to press that Justice Bennett’s opinion may be swayed by her view on the matter, Kuksal said she would have trouble believing allegations of wrongdoing against Nelson Mandela, but no trouble believing wrongdoing alleged against Adolf Hitler.

He also claimed that while the matter was before a judicial registrar, the board waited until the “last minute” to agree it should proceed to a duty judge, and in doing so guaranteed it would end up before Justice Bennett. Kuksal alleged there was a “reasonable apprehension that Your Honour was assigned this matter … as the duty judge”.

“There is a natural apprehension that arises that the duty judge got the matter because the applicant’s solicitors had essentially tried their best to manipulate events in a way that could be facilitated, and the duty judge is a judicial officer that has extensively worked for the solicitor on record for the applicant,” Kuksal said.

In responding to Justice Bennett’s potential recusal on the grounds of knowing one of the disciplined lawyers, Andrew Silver, counsel for the Bar, said he could not “confront applications that do not exist”.

“But Your Honour is in a position where you have a petition before you, you have been asked to recuse yourself on the grounds that there might be apprehended bias in determining that matter, [and] if a contempt application is brought … that is not the subject of this petition. It is a separate proceeding,” Silver said.

Throughout Silver’s submissions, and even at times during the submissions of his fellow respondents, Kuksal interrupted, shook his head and had his hands in the air. Justice Bennett repeatedly asked him to sit down and to stop interrupting.

The recusal decision was reserved.