Instead, Justice Bennett’s recusal was due to her past representation of a disciplined lawyer whom Kuksal flagged may provide evidence about the board and commissioner’s alleged misconduct. This lawyer was penalised in 2021 on charges of contempt of court.

“It may be [that] attempts to call the former client are misconceived.

“However, the circumstances are unusual: my professional obligations from the time that I acted for the former client prevent me from disclosing all of the matters that are relevant to assessing whether or not it is appropriate for me to adjudicate on matters which concern them in the specific circumstances of this case,” she said.

Kuksal told the court he started an online community where almost all high-profile disciplinary cases, including those who received suspensions from the board, were supposedly giving himself, Xu, and Ansell “details about their cases and documents”.

Turning to the submissions concerning McLeay and a solicitor of the board, Justice Bennett said she has a “friendly relationship” with both, following “many years of professional associations”.

VIEW ALL

However, the authorities have made clear that the reasonable-minded lay observer understands judges are drawn from the senior ranks of the profession, “and that they will have extensive professional associations connected with that fact”, as is in this case.

The reasonable-minded lay observer would also expect a senior barrister, acting in accordance with the “cab rank” principle, to have acted for a range of parties and accepted briefs from numerous solicitors, “without compromising their independence”.

“A lay observer would not reasonably apprehend that the judge could not determine proceedings involving the former client, or instructor, impartially,” Justice Bennett concluded on this point.

Given Justice Bennett’s conclusion on the former client, she said it was not necessary to canvas the matter concerning McLeay further.

“It is sufficient that I conclude that having regard to all of the circumstances together, it is appropriate that the matter now be referred to the docket of another judge,” Justice Bennett said.

The case: Victorian Legal Services Board v Kuksal, in the matter of Kuksal [2025] FCA 508