H J AMES J OHNSON

HUMAN RIGHTS § CIVIL RIGHTS § CORRUPTION § MEDIA

D EFA M AT I O N § P R O F E S S I O N A L N E G L I G E N C E L AW
1 S T F L O O R 1 4 1 O S B O R N E S T R E E T S O U T H YA R R A V I C T O R I A 3 1 4 1
TELEPHONE: +613 9279 3932 FA C S I M I L E : + 6 1 3 9 2 7 9 3 9 5 5

Sunday 11 October 2009 *** IMPORTANT COMMUNICATION

*** CONFIDENTIAL: MR BROUWER'S EYES ONLY

Mr George Brouwer
Victorian State Ombudsman
Level 9, 459 Collins Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000
By Facsimile: 9614 0246 (.... pages)
And By Registered Mail

Dear Mr Brouwer

COMPLAINT AGAINST LEGAL PRACTITIONERS LIABILITY COMMITTEE

1. I wish to make a formal complaint of misconduct and corruption by the Legal Practitioners Liability
Committee on account of its misuse of her powers under the Legal Profession Act 2004 and its failure to
comply with itts responsibilities under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act.

2. I attach for your information correspondences, outlining my complaints against this recalcitrant and defective
Government authority. Briefly:

 The Legal Practitioners Liablity Committee is a public authority that continues in existence pursuant to
relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Act 2004;
 The Legal Practitioners Liability Committee has a statutory monoply on the provision of professional
indemnity insurance cover for Australian legal practitioners practising in Victoria;
 The Legal Practitioners Liablity committee is contractual bound by the terms of its policies of insurance
to fund legal representation for its insureds (legal practitioners) subject to a and subject to various
exclusions;
 One of those exclusions is where the conduct of the insured constitutes a crime [it being contrary to
public policy for anybody to grant a policy of insurance that insures an insured against the costs of any
crime committed by the insured (including an insured's legal costs in respect of a defence of the insured
criminal acts);
 The Legal Practitioners Liability Committee is obliged as a matter of (public) corporations law and as a
matter of public authority law to form a reasonable opinion, before covering the defence costs of an
insured accused of misconduct amounting to criminal misconduct, that the insured is not guilty of
criminal misconduct.

Page 1 of Many
  In the course of his judgements the Trial Judge in the Cressy v Johnson proceedings held that, if the
allegations I have made against Ms Cressy's lawyers (the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee's
insureds for the purposes of this complaint) are proven, they are guilty of criminal misconduct;
 The Victorian State Ombudsman's Report contains a useful one page statement of what is required for a
public authority to reach a 'reasonable opinion' as to the truth of any allegations (see attached);
 I have included the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee in the circulation of all submissions and
correspondences that I have sent to the judiciary and the legal representatives (including the 4 city law
firms funded by that Committee) in these proceedings;
 By reason of the receipt of those submissions and correspondences (including without limitation my
faxed submissions of 10 October 2009 and the schedules thereto) the Legal Practitioners Liability
Committee could not reasonably form any opinion other than that:
■ Its insureds (Ms Cressy's lawyers, and indeed Ms Cressy's original lawyers' lawyers) are guilty of
serious misconduct that is indeed as the Trial Judge indicated criminal misconduct;
■ Its insureds (Ms Cressy's lawyers, and indeed Ms Cressy's original lawyers' lawyers) are not
entitled to indemnity for any of their defence costs in these proceedings; and
■ Its insured (Ms Cressy's lawyers) are obliged to refund to the Legal Practitioners Liability
Committee all defence costs paid or incurred by the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee to
date.
 By reason of its funding, and continued funding of Ms Cressy's lawyers defence costs and Ms Cressy's
orginal lawyers' lawyers' defence costs in these proceedings, the Legal Practitioners Liablity Committee
is violating and/or abusing its powers under the Legal Profession Act 2004 and because of the
'inequality of arms' that the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee is adding to in these proceedings the
Legal Practitioners Liability Committee is violating its human rights responsiblities under the Charter of
Human Rights and Responsibillities Act.

3. All of the materials I have filed with your office in support of my complaint against Victorian Legal Services
Commissioner, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner, the Victorian Legal Aid
Office and the Law Institute of Victoria are relevant to this complaint against the Legal Practitioners Liability
Committee.

Regards

JAMES JOHNSON

Page 2 of Many
Attachments:

(1) Copy # letter from the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee to me;

(2) Copy my letter to the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee dated 10 October 2009, plus all attachments
referred to therein (... pages)

Page 3 of Many