Login
Strike off recommended for lawyer who threatened barrister with violence
A Victorian solicitor who threatened a barrister with violence has become one step closer to having his name scrubbed from the roll.
Naomi Neilson
Last August, Patrick Lennon was found to have engaged in professional misconduct when he sent eight threatening text messages to barrister Dimitrios Podaridis in July 2020.
Lennon had learnt Podaridis intended to give evidence against him in proceedings that dealt with allegedly unpaid legal fees.
In last year’s Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) judgment, senior member Reynah Tang AM said the text messages were sent in the course of legal practice and were an attempt by Lennon to have Podaridis “refrain from giving evidence”.
Late last week, Tang made an order for Lennon to be reprimanded, pay costs, and recommended the Victorian Supreme Court remove his name from the roll of legal practitioners.
“There is no doubt Lennon’s misconduct was very serious and fell substantially short of the standard expected of a solicitor, particularly one who had … been practising for some 30 years.
“Lennon’s attempts to dissuade Podaridis from giving his evidence by making threats was a basic error of judgment that clearly establishes that he is not a fit and proper person to practise.
“It is necessary for the tribunal to denounce that conduct in the strongest terms,” Tang said in his recent written reasons.
The legal fee proceedings concerned the $500,000 that Podaridis’ cousin, Maria Lantouris, allegedly agreed to pay Lennon’s firm – Lennon Mazzeo Lawyers – on behalf of her brother Nicholas Sevdalis. The brother allegedly racked up an $800,000 legal bill.
Lennon originally intended to call Podaridis to give evidence but his solicitor advised against it after proofing the barrister.
When Lennon learnt what Podaridis intended to tell the court, he became “furious” and said he should have “told the truth”.
Lennon did not make submissions or provide evidence to VCAT concerning the proposed penalties.
In correspondence with the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner, Lennon said the proceedings were a “witch hunt with no utility” and were “nonsense” or “scandalous” because he had already given an undertaking not to apply for another practising certificate.
The commissioner said it was “abundantly clear” Lennon had failed to recognise the “fundamental and gross nature of his misconduct”.
While Tang said Lennon’s absence should not lead to an inference he has no remorse or insight, his failure to participate meant there was no evidence “on which to make favourable findings”.
Referring to his undertaking, Tang said this was offered after the Victorian Legal Services Board notified Lennon of its intention to cancel his certificate, “when the writing was on the wall”.
“While Lennon may no longer pose a risk to the public in light of his undertaking not to apply for a practising certificate, if he were to remain on the roll despite the absence of evidence as to any significant remorse, insight or rehabilitation on his part, this would likely pose an ongoing risk to the legal profession and the administration of justice,” Tang said.
The case is Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Lennon (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 40 (16 January 2025).
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
