“Clowns”, “Wankers”, Says Lawyer To Law Society
Well, well, well. If there’s ever been a masterclass in how to spectacularly torpedo your legal career while simultaneously confirming every awful stereotype about lawyers, George Sideris just delivered it — gift-wrapped with a bow made of profanity and middle-finger emojis.
This delightfully unhinged NSW solicitor managed to get himself struck from the roll after unleashing what can only be described as a sustained verbal assault that would make a drunken sailor blush.
His grand finale? Calling Law Society members “wankers” and “clowns” while insisting all lawyers are “basically arseholes and peasants that do not deserve respect of any kind.”
The Mother-in-Law from Hell… or Was It?
Sideris’s downfall began with what he claimed was just being a “caring son-in-law” and wrote a ‘profanity laden’ email to a law firm partner, which saw him appear before the NSW Law Society, who he had told to “fuck off” .
The Supreme Court wasn’t buying his amateur hour performance. They found he’d been acting as a legal practitioner while dealing with The Salvation Army about his mother-in-law’s accommodation deposit, persistently breaching professional conduct rules with all the subtlety of a bulldozer through a china shop.
A Complete Absence of Self-Discipline
Chief Justice Andrew Bell and his colleagues delivered what might be the most politely savage judicial smackdown in recent memory, noting Sideris had demonstrated “the very antithesis of professional courtesy” and a “wholesale absence of any self-discipline.”
The bench wasn’t impressed by his stress excuse either — apparently, having a rough patch doesn’t justify months of what they termed “grossly discourteous, coarse, disrespectful, gratuitously offensive” correspondence. Who knew?
Perhaps the most bizarrely entertaining part? Sideris admitted he hadn’t even bothered reading the tribunal’s decisions and was “not interested” in doing so.
This stunning display of willful ignorance only reinforced the court’s findings about his complete lack of insight , a quality that tends to be rather important when you’re trying to, let’s see, practice law.
