Lawyer exposed as alleged ‘sex pest’

A South Australian barrister accused of sexual misconduct towards a junior employee has lost a fight to keep his identity a secret.

Editor’s note: This story first appeared on HR Leader’s sister brand, Lawyers Weekly.

Enzo Belperio, a barrister for almost 20 years, was accused of sexual harassment and gross indecency towards a junior solicitor – known only as F to protect her identity – in a public bar and his chambers.

Specific details cannot yet be published, but the South Australian Supreme Court said the alleged misconduct occurred in connection with Belperio’s practice and F’s firm, which often briefed him.

“It is alleged that F attended that occasion because Belperio asked a more senior solicitor in that firm to ask her to attend. That conduct, on its face, involves two imbalances of power, founded in the hierarchy of the legal profession,” the court said.

While his identity had remained a secret since the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner laid professional misconduct charges in 2022, South Australian newspaper The Advertiser caught wind of the allegations last year and labelled the then-unnamed Belperio a “sex pest”.

In a decision handed down late last week, Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, Justice Chris Bleby, and Justice Laura Stein said it would be contrary to public interest and open justice to allow Belperio to keep his anonymity in the ongoing proceedings.

“Suppression of the information is not only contrary to the open justice principle and, therefore, liable to diminish public confidence in the disciplinary regime, it is also a paternalistic denial of the personal autonomy of those legal practitioners and of members of the public who may have dealings with Belperio in his professional capacity,” Chief Justice Kourakis said in his written reasons.

While originally, the state’s Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal summarily dismissed the professional misconduct charge on the ground it did not have jurisdiction, the Supreme Court allowed an appeal brought by the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner.

Faced with another proceeding, Belperio claimed his personal and professional reputation, as well as his mental health, would be damaged if his name was revealed. However, he generally agreed the suppression order application was “unsupported by reliable and credible evidence as to the impact publicity would occasion” on him.

In support of Belperio, his wife – who only learnt of the allegations last September – told the court she was afraid to be perceived by women in the legal profession “as a woman who is associated with and continues to support a sexual predator”.

Although the bench accepted her hardship, it found this “does not provide a sound foundation on which to infer that she will, in fact, be so incapacitated” as to not give evidence in the proceedings.

“The way in which the rules of the court and its case management processes operate generally, as well as in a particular case, are proper matters of public interest. Many actions also legitimately attract a more local, familiar, or personal interest in the subject matter of controversy,” Chief Justice Kourakis said.

“For example, this very action is of substantial interest to the legal practitioners and sectors of the public for whom the disciplinary regulation of the profession is important.”

The case is Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner v Belperio (No 2) [2024] SASCA 133 (22 November 2024).