Former lawyer makes ‘scandalous’ claims about disciplinary body

A former barrister removed from the profession for comments he made about other legal practitioners was handed a costs order after he attempted to relitigate “scandalous” matters.

The Supreme Court of the ACT ordered former barrister Hugh Russell Ford to pay the Law Society’s costs despite his submissions that the proceedings were an “abuse of process” that had already drained him of $40,000.

Ford was struck from the roll in January on 24 counts of professional misconduct and two counts of unsatisfactory professional conduct, including for making unsubstantiated claims of improper conduct against other legal practitioners.

A court was told those lawyers let Ford’s client down “in the most unprofessional way” by failing to lodge an application on time, but this submission was found to be “without evidentiary basis”.

In an attempt to “damage” the standing of a Federal Circuit Court judge, Ford also sent a letter “of the most serious kind” to the Chief Judge that was “impermissibly offensive and discourteous”.

In the costs decision, handed down late last week, Justices David Mossop, Verity McWilliam and Ann Ainslie-Wallace said Ford opposed the findings sought by the Law Society in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT), in an ACAT appeal, and in proceedings for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.

While the Law Society made “reasonable offers” in order to minimise costs, Ford “made no relevant response”, the decision set out.

“In those circumstances, subject to consideration of the specific arguments put forward by [Ford], it would be an appropriate case in which to order that he pay … costs,” the bench said.

Justices Mossop, McWilliam and Ainslie-Wallace said Ford’s submissions only served to reinforce the conclusion reached by the full court in January that he was unfit to practise as a lawyer.

“They contain submissions which were either scandalous, attempted to relitigate matters already determined against him, had no proven foundation in fact, or indicated a lack of understanding of the judicial process,” they said.

Those submissions included allegations of bullying and harassment by the Law Society’s former director of professional standards, that the proceedings were an “abuse of process” to punish him, and that many refugees died “because of the unlawful conduct” of the government.

Ford also submitted the $40,000 he already paid in costs should cover the proceedings in ACAT, the appeal tribunal of ACAT, and the Supreme Court because the Law Society did not incur additional costs. He said the Law Society “should not be allowed to double dip”.

Justices Mossop, McWilliam and Ainslie-Wallace said this submission was not “realistic”.

“It is clear that, in order to perform its regulatory functions, the plaintiff would have had to incur significant legal costs in preparing and presenting its case at each level, notwithstanding the earlier proceedings,” they said in conclusion.

The case is Law Society v Ford (No 3) [2025] ACTSCFC 1 (27 March 2025).