Login
Guilty solicitor accuses Supreme Court of ‘grave bias’
A Victorian solicitor has requested that the Supreme Court grant him an extension of time to seek leave on the grounds the courts were not impartial and were “significantly biased” by allegedly denying him a hearing on the matter of costs.
Naomi Neilson
Solicitor Joel Beling was found guilty of professional misconduct at common law for failing to exercise care and competence. He was reprimanded and was restricted to practicing only under supervision for a period of three years, as well as ordered to pay $10,000 and complete an additional 10 points of continuing professional development.
Mr Beling is seeking an appeal on the basis the court did not grant him a fair hearing and showed “significant bias” by allegedly denying him a hearing on costs. He also alleged the courts listed a “fake or ostensible hearing on costs” and handed down a pre-written decision on the judgement without hearing any further arguments by either party.
Mr Beling alleged the courts then covered up particulars of “six abuses of power” that he raised against the defendants and accused the court of altering transcripts by deleting or changing passages of the hearing which showed Mr Beling had a “meritorious case”.
Further, Mr Beling alleged the defendants failed to comply with professional standards of the legal profession during the course of the investigation and demonstrated “grave bias” towards him by falsifying and forging his client files during proceedings.
Mr Beling is seeking the court to refuse the defendant’s application for summary judgement and the court grants leave to discontinue proceedings. He is also requesting that the court issues a writ of certiorari quashing the Victorian Legal Service Commission’s notice of decision, which he also alleged was wrongly dismissed.
The appeal will be heard before a judge in November 2020.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
