[ON LAW INSTITUTE LETTERHEAD]

# September 2009

Mr Collin Neave A.M.

Chairman
Legal Services Board
Level 9, 330 Collins Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000

By Facsimile: 9679 8101

Ms Victoria Marles
Chief Executive Officer
Legal Services Board
and Legal Services Commissioner
Level 9, 330 Collins Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000

By Facsimile: 9679 8101

Attention: Ms Margaret McNamara

Dear Mr Neave, Ms Marles and Ms McNamara

INVESTIGATION OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS AGAINST HARWOOD ANDREWS

LAWYERS, BERRY FAMILY LAW AND GRAEME DEVRIES OF THE VICTORIAN BAR

1. I am writing to you on behalf of Mr Harold James Johnson, an Australian legal practitioner of 19 years
continuous good standing, and a member of the Law Institute of some 20 years continuous good standing.
2. Over the past 2 decades James has been an active member of the Law Institute, including past-Chairman of
several Law Institute Committees (notably as Chairman of the Law Institute’s GST Taskforce during 1999
-2001. James also provided substantial service to the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee during that
period and was a monthly columnist for the Law Institute Journal from 1999 through until 2003.
3. In recent times James has become embroiled in deeply personal litigation that has no connection
whatsoever with his professional affairs. James is understandably bitter about that personal litigation,
involving legal claims against him personally and against his assets, which James claims are malicious and
fraudulent proceedings. Without going into the merits of those proceedings, the Law Institute notes that they
are the subject of ongoing litigation and appeals in both State and Federal jurisdictions.
4. James has informed the Law Institute that he has filed with the Legal Services Board and its Legal Services
Commissioner a number of professional misconduct complaints against the abovementioned law firms,
including principals and employees of those firms. James has also informed the Law Institute that he has
made similar professional misconduct complaints against the barrister, Mr Graeme Devries of the Victorian
Bar, who has conducted the bulk of these legal proceedings against him. James has informed the Law
Institute that, thus far, the Legal Services Board and the Legal Services Commissioner have failed to
investigate those complaints.
5. At the same time, James has been the subject of a number of attacks, including allegations as to his mental
capacity and fitness to continue to practice, notably at the instigation of Mr Graeme Devries of the Victorian
Bar. James has informed the Law Institute that Graeme Devries has on no less than 4 occasions (twice in
the Victorian Supreme Court before Justice Kaye, and twice in the Federal Magistrates Court before
Magistrate O’Dwyer) made grave allegations as to James’ mental health. Most recently (as you are aware)
this resulted in the Law Institute, as delegate of the Legal Services Board, compelling James to attend for a
psychiatric examination before Dr John Buchanan, which examination James duly attended in early May
2009. Dr John Buchanan’s report published in late May 2009 demonstrated that James suffers no mental
health problems whatsoever (and indeed has coped extraordinarily well with the emotional stress and
financial turmoil caused by these legal proceedings against which he continues to defend himself). In this
regard Dr John Buchanan’s report confirmed the findings of the two psychologist’s reports that James
supplied to the Law Institute, from Michael Clarebrough (dated May 2008) and from Marianne Love (dated
December 2007). I attach a copy of James’ letter to the Law Institute of 28 May 2009 (plus attachments).
Paragraph 8 of which includes Justice Kaye of the Supreme Court’s assessment of James’ abilities as a
legal professional, recorded by him as recent as 25 February 2009.
6. The fact that Graeme Devries allegations against James have been demonstrated for a fourth time and so
comprehensively to be without merit, does lend weight to James’ complaints that these legal practitioners,
and Graeme Devries in particular have been engaged in a grossly unprofessional vendetta against him.
The Law Institute is also aware of Justice Kaye’s comments, in passing, in his judgement recorded in
February this year as Cressy v Johnson [No.2] that if James complaints against Graeme Devries and others
are proven, their actions constitute criminal misconduct as well as serious professional misconduct.
Questions must be asked as to why these Australian legal practitioners, and Graeme Devries in particular,
have pursued James so doggedly with these wild and unsubstantiated claims.
7. The Law Institute is aware that James has articulated his complaints about these Australian legal
practitioners and in particular Mr Graeme Devries of the Victorian Bar, so it is unnecessary to repeat or to
attempt to summarise those complaints for present purposes.
8. James complaints against these Australian legal practitioners are serious and substantial. The Law Institute
therefore calls on the Legal Services Board and its Legal Services Commissioner to properly and fairly
investigate the professional misconduct complaints that James has made against the abovementioned
Australian legal practitioners.

[insert appropriate sign-off]