The Tribunal finds that Mr John Perry engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of s 298(b) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Victoria) (Uniform Law) in that, on 8 August 2022, he engaged in conduct discreditable to a barrister and in doing so contravened rule 8(a) of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (Conduct Rules) by reason of the admitted conduct giving rise to Charge 1.

1. Under s 299(1)(b) and 302(1) of the Uniform Law, Mr Perry is reprimanded.
2. Under s 299(1) and s 302(1) of the Uniform Law, Mr Perry is to complete an additional five (5) continuing professional development units as approved by the applicant, within 12 months of this order.
3. Under s 302(1) of the Uniform Law, Mr Perry is to make a donation of $5,000.00 to a charity as approved by the applicant within 30 days of this order.
4. Under s 303(1) of the Uniform Law, Mr Perry is to pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding fixed in the sum of $2,145.00 within 30 days of this order.

1. This decision concerns a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (VLSC) against Mr John Perry, a barrister.[1]
2. The VLSC has brought one charge of professional misconduct against Mr Perry, and he admits the characterisation of the conduct alleged against him as professional misconduct. Mr Perry also agrees with the VLSC about determination and penalties.
3. On 27 November 2024, the Tribunal listed the matter for hearing on 1 April 2025 for submissions on characterisation, determination and penalty.
4. Under section 82(1)(b) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Act 1998 (Vic) (VCAT Act) this matter was heard with, but remained separate from, proceeding J53/2024 (the matter concerning Mr Robert Squirrell).
5. On 1 April 2025, I heard both matters and published my orders.
6. I now provide written reasons for those orders.

1. Mr Perry was admitted to legal practice in Victoria on 1 November 1979. At all relevant times he has held a practising certificate entitling him to practise as a barrister. He has not been subject to disciplinary conduct findings in the past.
2. On 8 August 2022 at 9.27 pm, Mr Perry sent Mr Squirrell, another barrister, an email with an attached document which bore a logo similar to the Victorian Bar logo (the notice). Mr Perry was the author of the notice. The email subject was 'A new development' and the text of the email was 'This is going in the lifts tomorrow'. The notice read:

ESTABLISHMENT OF LGBTQMS REVIEW COMMITTEE

Member of the Bar identifying with one (or more) of the minority groups represented by the anagram above have expressed concerns that briefs from various large litigators both governmental and private have not been disproportionately directed to them.

It is resolved to form a sub-committee to investigate the basis of this concern, how many barristers are affected and what steps can be taken to alleviate the situation.

Membership is open to all members of more than ten years call, be they junior or silk, who fall into at least one of the characters thus, white, male heterosexuals will not be eligible to serve.

The letters 'MS' may require explanation. It refers to mud screwers because as the American Jewish comedian the late and great Lenny Bruce once said-

'Some guys would screw mud'.

Expressions of interest should be lodged on the fifth floor, Owen Dixon Chambers East and close on 30 August 2022.

VICTORIAN BAR

10 August 2022[2]

1. On 8 August 2022, Mr Squirrell printed four copies of the notice at his home. On 10 August 2022, Mr Squirrell displayed a copy of the notice in each of four lifts at Owen Dixon Chambers East. The lifts were accessible to members of the Victorian Bar and members of the public.
2. The notice was removed from the lifts by an officer of the Victorian Bar on the morning of 11 August 2022.
3. The fact of the notice and its display was reported in the Herald Sun on 17 August 2022 and The Age on 17 and 18 August 2022.[3]

Investigation of the complaint and VCAT proceedings

1. On 17 August 2022, the Victorian Bar made a complaint to the VLSC about Mr Perry.
2. On 29 August 2022, the VLSC wrote to Mr Perry notifying him of the complaint and their intention to conduct a preliminary assessment of the complaint.
3. On 15 September 2022, the VLSC wrote to Mr Perry and advised they had decided to investigate the complaint and required that he provide particular information pursuant to section 371(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Victoria) (Uniform Law).
4. On 16 September 2022, Mr Perry provided his preliminary response to the notice of decision to investigate the complaint. In this response he admitted to sending the email but did not concede the notice was offensive. He characterised the communication as private and that its purpose was to poke fun rather than cause offense. Mr Perry also raised concerns that the Victorian Bar email system had been hacked.[4]
5. On 10 October 2022, in a statutory declaration,[5] Mr Perry admitted that, upon reflection, the notice was offensive and resiled from his previous statement that it was not so. Mr Perry clarified that he was the sole author and creator of the notice and stated that his motive was to poke fun at political correctness and wokeism rather than cast aspersions at minority groups.
6. In response to requests from the VLSC for further information, by letter and statutory declaration dated 21 December 2022, Mr Perry, among other things, stated that he did not know the identity of the person who placed the notice in the lift, and that he did not anticipate the notice would be so placed.
7. On 19 December 2023, Mr Perry advised the VLSC he would plead guilty to a charge of professional misconduct on the basis of a breach of rule 8(a) of the Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (Conduct Rules). He also agreed he would consent to the penalties which are now agreed between the parties.
8. On 28 June 2024, the VLSC commenced proceedings at the Tribunal. The original application outlined six charges against Mr Perry.
9. On 20 August 2024, Mr Perry agreed he would plead guilty to one charge of professional misconduct as above (charge 4 of the original application).
10. On 21 August 2024, the VLSC filed an amended application for orders, with the one charge of professional misconduct against Mr Perry.[6]

(1) For the purposes of this Law, professional misconduct includes -

(a) unsatisfactory professional conduct of a lawyer, where the conduct involves a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence; and

(b) conduct of a lawyer whether occurring in connection with the practice of law or occurring otherwise than in connection with the practice of law that would, if established, justify a finding that the lawyer is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice.

(2) For the purpose of deciding whether a lawyer is or is not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice as referred to in subsection (1)(b), regard may be had to the matters that would be considered if the lawyer were an applicant for admission to the Australian legal profession or for the grant or renewal of an Australian practising certificate and any other relevant matters.

Conduct capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct

Without limitation, the following conduct is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct - ...

(a) conduct consisting of a contravention of the Uniform Rules

1. Rule 8 of the Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (Conduct Rules) provides:

A barrister must not engage in conduct which is:

(a) dishonest or otherwise discreditable to a barrister,

...

(1) If, after it has completed a hearing under this Part into the conduct of a respondent lawyer, the designated tribunal[7] finds that the lawyer is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the designated tribunal may make any orders that it thinks fit, including any of the orders that a local regulatory authority can make under section 299 in relation to a lawyer and any one or more of the following -

(a) an order that the lawyer do or refrain from doing something in connection with the practice of law;

(b) an order that the lawyer cease to accept instructions as a public notary in relation to notarial services;

(c) an order that the lawyer's practice be managed for a specified period in a specified way or subject to specified conditions;

(d) an order that the lawyer's practice be subject to periodic inspection by a specified person for a specified period;

(e) an order that the lawyer seek advice in relation to the management of the lawyer's practice from a specified person;

(f) an order recommending that the name of the lawyer be removed from a roll kept by a Supreme Court, a register of lawyers kept under jurisdictional legislation or the Australian Legal Profession Register;

(g) an order directing that a specified condition be imposed on the Australian practising certificate or Australian registration certificate of the lawyer;

(h) an order directing that the lawyer's Australian practising certificate or Australian registration certificate be suspended for a specified period or cancelled;

(i) an order directing that an Australian practising certificate or Australian registration certificate not be granted to the lawyer before the end of a specified period;

(j) an order that the lawyer not apply for an Australian practising certificate or Australian registration certificate before the end of a specified period;

(k) a compensation order against the lawyer in accordance with Part 5.5;

(l) an order that the lawyer pay a fine of a specified amount not exceeding $100 000 if the lawyer is found guilty of professional misconduct.

(2) Subject to section 303, the designated tribunal may make ancillary or other orders, including -

(a) an order for payment by the lawyer of expenses associated with orders under this section, as assessed or reviewed in or in accordance with the order or as agreed; and

(b) an interlocutory or interim order, including an order of the kind referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The designated tribunal may find a person guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct even though the complaint or charge alleged professional misconduct.

(4) If the designated tribunal makes an order that a lawyer pay a fine, a copy of the order may be filed in the registry of a court having jurisdiction to give judgment for a debt of the same amount as the amount of the fine and the order may be enforced as if it were an order of the court.

(5) To avoid doubt, the power of the designated tribunal under subsection (1) to make any of the orders that the designated local regulatory authority can make under section 299 extends to making orders of that kind in relation to a lawyer whom the tribunal finds is guilty of professional misconduct.

(6) It is intended that jurisdictional legislation may provide a right of appeal against or a right of review of the designated tribunal's decision.

Professional misconduct within the meaning of section 298(b) of the Uniform Law and rule 8 of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (Conduct Rules) in that, on 8 August 2022, the Respondent engaged in conduct discreditable to a barrister and in doing so contravened rule 8(a) of the Conduct Rules.

PARTICULARS

1. On 8 August 2022, the Respondent created a demeaning, humiliating and/or offensive and discriminatory notice;
2. The Respondent sent the notice by email to another barrister, Mr Robert Squirrell, with the subject 'A new development' and the text '[T]his is going in the lifts tomorrow';
3. The notice was subsequently placed in four lifts at Owen Dixon Chambers East, 205 William Street, Melbourne, on 10 August 2022 by Mr Squirrell;
4. By creating the notice and sending it to Mr Squirrell, the Respondent enabled the notice to be displayed in the lifts at Owen Dixon Chambers East, 205 William Street, Melbourne, and was reckless as to whether his conduct so enabled the display of the notice, and whether Mr Squirrell would display the notice.[8]

1. In joint submissions filed on 15 October 2024, based on the agreed facts, the parties agreed the following findings are open to the Tribunal:
   1. On 8 August 2022, the Respondent created a demeaning, humiliating and/or offensive and discriminatory notice.
   2. The notice was sent by the Respondent to Mr Squirrell by email on 8 August 2022 at 9.27 pm with the subject 'A new development' and the text '[T]his is going in the lifts tomorrow'.
   3. On the afternoon of 10 August 2022, Mr Squirrell placed the notice in four lifts at ODCE.
   4. By creating the notice and sending it to Mr Squirrell, the Respondent enabled the notice to be displayed in the lifts at ODCE and was reckless as to whether his conduct so enabled the display of the notice, and whether Mr Squirrell would display the notice.
   5. The notice was demeaning, humiliating and/or offensive and discriminatory. It had the effect of demeaning, humiliating and/or offending and discriminating against members of the Victorian Bar who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans or queer. It also had the effect of offending or adversely affecting members of the community at large who saw the notice in the lifts and/or read about it in the media.
   6. The notice was demeaning, humiliating and/or offensive because:
      1. it included the acronym 'LGBTQ', which is well established as referring to people who identify as such, together with the letters 'MS', which the notice explained referred to 'mud screwers' on the basis that 'some guys would screw mud'. The implicit meaning was that the sexual preferences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and/or queer people is akin to 'screw[ing] mud'; and
      2. by referring to members of 'LGBTQMS' being concerned that briefs were 'not being disproportionately directed to them', implies that briefs were being disproportionately directed to members of the LGBTIQ+ community on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
   7. The Respondent had a duty, set out in rule 8(a) of the Conduct Rules, not to engage in conduct that was discreditable to a barrister.
   8. By creating the notice and sending it to another barrister, reckless as to whether the notice would be displayed and the consequential offence and harm it would cause if displayed, the Respondent engaged in conduct that was discreditable to a barrister and so contravened rule 8(a) of the Conduct Rules.
   9. By contravening the Conduct Rules, the Respondent engaged in conduct that was professional misconduct within the meaning of section 298(b) of the Uniform Law.
   10. By pleading guilty, albeit at a late stage, the Respondent has demonstrated insight into his conduct and the offense it caused.[9]
2. I accept the agreed findings of fact and find them proven.

1. The parties have agreed the conduct is characterised as professional misconduct under section 298(b) of the Uniform Law.
2. As stated by Deputy President Lambrick in Pharmacy Board of Australia v Hopkinson:[10]

The principles that apply to our approach to such an Agreed Statement are well established. The agreement between the parties is a highly relevant matter for our consideration with respect to the factual findings, the characterisation of those findings and the determinations that should be imposed. It remains, of course, our duty to determine these matters and no agreement between a regulator and the professional person under review can supplant that duty. Nevertheless, departure from an agreed position ought not take place without clear or exceptional reason. The Tribunal will not lightly depart from an agreed sanction where the negotiated settlement and proposed penalty are broadly speaking within the permissible range, having regard to all the circumstances. The Tribunal will, however, reality test and hear submissions in relation to any joint proposal.[11]

1. The Tribunal's duty is to determine whether the allegation is proven, consider the characterisation of the allegation and impose the relevant sanction. This duty cannot be supplanted by an agreement between the parties.
2. Conduct capable of constituting professional misconduct under section 298 of the Uniform Law includes (b), conduct consisting of a contravention of the Uniform Rules. Section 6 of the Uniform Law defines Uniform Rules as including Legal Profession Uniform Rules made under Part 9.2, with section 419 of that part empowering the Legal Services Council to make 'Legal Profession Uniform Rules with respect to any matter that by this Law is required or permitted to be specified in Uniform Rules or that is necessary or convenient to be specified for carrying out or giving effect to this Law.' The Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 were made by the Council pursuant to this section of the Uniform Law.
3. Rule 8 of the Conduct Rules provides that '[a] barrister must not engage in conduct which is: (a) dishonest or otherwise discreditable to a barrister'.
4. The Macquarie dictionary defines 'discreditable' as to bring discredit.[12] Discredit is defined as:

• noun 3. Loss or lack of belief, of confidence, disbelief; distrust.

4. loss or lack of repute or esteem; disrepute.

5. something that damages a good reputation.[13]

1. The joint submissions submit Mr Perry's conduct was discreditable: he authored a note purporting to be on Victorian Bar letterhead that was demeaning, humiliating, offensive and discriminatory and sent it to a colleague reckless as to whether the notice would be displayed and the harm it would cause.[14]
2. The joint submissions submit discreditable should take its usual meaning and that it describes a wide range of conduct that is unbecoming of the office of a legal practitioner.
3. In Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Lewenberg,[15] a lawyer's conduct was described as discreditable for allowing religious or cultural solidarity to take precedence over his professional obligation to uphold the principle of equality before the law.[16]
4. In Legal Services Commissioner v Merkin,[17] the barrister's conduct included persisting with an appeal ground alleging interference with a transcript, when there was no evidence to support the assertion, and raising a question about the integrity of a judicial officer. The circumstances in the charges were described as '...discreditable for a barrister and were likely to diminish public confidence in the administration of justice...'.[18]
5. Referring to disciplinary cases in other fields, the submissions reference Psychology Board of Australia v Goode,[19] where a psychologist who had referred, amongst other things, to homosexuality as 'distasteful' was described as expressing discreditable views.[20]
6. Further, the joint submissions reference Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia v Wilcox,[21] where an enrolled nurse's offensive correspondence, which included homophobic remarks, was held to be professional misconduct.
7. The words used in the notice written by Mr Perry are not in dispute. With respect to the context and circumstances in which the notice was written Mr Perry has stated:

(a) He was the sole author and creator of the notice;

(b) He sent the notice in a private email as a joke;

(c) He admitted, on reflection, the notice was offensive and resiled from his preliminary response that he did not consider it offensive; and,

(d) His motive was to poke fun at political correctness and wokeism rather than cast aspersions at minority groups.[22]

1. The joint submissions submit that professional misconduct under section 298 of the Uniform Law does not need to be tied to the definitions in sections 296 and 297. Connection with the practice of law is not necessary for proof of professional misconduct under section 298.[23]
2. Mr Perry concedes his conduct was discreditable as he authored the notice purporting to be on Victoria Bar letterhead that was demeaning, offensive, humiliating and discriminatory towards members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual queer and trans community and to members of the general community.
3. The notice is offensive because of the following two meanings.
4. Firstly, the inclusion of 'MS' in the LGBTQI acronym,[24] referencing 'mud screwers', has the implicit meaning that the sexual preference of members of the LGBTQI community is akin to 'screwing mud.' The notice suggests sexual deviancy by members of LGBTQI community.
5. The suggestion that sexual deviancy attaches to the LGBTQI community in the present day is offensive, both legally and socially. It is contrary to principles of equality and is legally discriminatory. Gender identity and sexual orientation are attributes the basis of which discrimination is prohibited by Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic). Homosexuality was decriminalised in Victoria over 40 years ago. On 9 December 2017, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 (Cth) amended the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), recognizing marriage as the 'the union of two people to the exclusion of all others.' On a social level it reveals a disrespectful and demeaning attitude towards members of the LGBTQI community.
6. In a letter dated 30 November 2022 to the VLSC, Mr Christopher McDermott, a member of the Victorian Bar, wrote in his personal capacity seeking an update as to the VLSC's investigation. He wrote that the notice was objectively offensive, firstly because the reference to briefing practices was untrue. Secondly, with reference to 'mud screwers', he stated:

On an ostensible reading, the term is utterly asinine. But peel past the surface and stop and think what is actually being conveyed by this reference. It is a less than subtle suggestion of deviance from the norm, of something 'not being right', and contrary to acceptable moral standards. It is a direct harking back to a bygone era of the view that sexual conduct outside of a particular construct - heterosexuality - being something to be publicly condemned, sneered at and ridiculed. It is an insidious view that can only go to reinforcing stigma and adverse attitudes towards members of my community.[25]

1. Secondly, the phrase in the notice that members of the LGBTQI community 'have expressed concerns that briefs from various large litigators both governmental and private have not been disproportionately directed to them' suggests members of the LGBTQI community receive briefs on the basis of identification with the LGBTQI community. This is an affront to those barristers' professional standing.
2. As Mr McDermott stated:

The notice reflects adversely on all of us as it suggests to the world at large 'you're not welcome here because there is something wrong with you' and/or that you are just some sort of walking protected attribute getting briefs without experience or merit.[26]

1. Both messages, of sexual deviancy and undeserved briefs, convey an impermissible attitude to the LGBTQI community and are antithetical to the inherent principles relevant to the uniform and consistent application of the law and general principles of equality, fairness, diversity and inclusion.
2. The conduct did not occur in the course of Mr Perry's professional practice, so no clients were directly affected. However, the conduct is indirectly connected to legal practice. Firstly, it was displayed in the four public lifts in his workplace, Owen Dixon Chambers East, and was able to be viewed by barristers and members of the general community. Secondly, as referred to above, it implies barristers from the LGBTQI community receive undeserved briefs. Thirdly, the logo on the notice was similar to the official Victorian Bar logo, so sought to attribute the views in the notice to the Victorian Bar, the barrister's professional body.
3. Mr Perry has admitted the conduct alleged in the charge, he has admitted its characterisation as professional misconduct and pleads guilty.
4. The imputation of both deviancy and the unmeritorious receipt of briefs by barristers in the LGBTQI community is objectively offensive and demeaning. For these reasons the conduct constitutes discreditable conduct by a barrister. Taking into account the agreed facts and the plea by Mr Perry, I am satisfied professional misconduct is established on the balance of probabilities. The notice was authored by Mr Perry and, by sending it to Mr Squirrell, he was reckless as to whether it would be publicly displayed. This conduct constitutes discreditable conduct which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by barristers of good repute and competency.
5. I am satisfied the characterisation of the conduct is professional misconduct under section 298(b) of the Uniform Law in contravention of Rule 8(a) of the Barristers Conduct Rules.

1. In Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Hyatt[27] Hampel J considered the situation as here, where the regulator and the regulated practitioner reach an agreement regarding penalty. The relevant principles are as follows:

a) there is an important public policy benefit in receiving, and if appropriate, accepting agreed penalty submissions; > > b) the decision of the High Court in Barbaro and Zirilli v The Queen, as to the inadmissibility of prosecution, or agreed penalty provisions in criminal proceedings has had no application to cases of this kind; > > c) upon persuasion of the accuracy of the parties' agreement as to facts and consequences, and that the penalty the parties propose is an appropriate one, it is a highly desirable practice for the Court to accept the parties' proposal.[28]

2. As indicated, it is the Tribunal's role to determine the characterisation of allegations and the applicable penalty. This role cannot be supplanted by agreement of the parties. Judge Hampel noted it is appropriate for parties to put an agreed position and if the Tribunal is satisfied the penalty is appropriate, it should not be lightly departed from.[29]
3. The applicable principles when considering penalties in legal professional disciplinary matters are set out in Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v OAG[30] and adopted in Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Flynn[31] as follows:

The primary aim of any sanction is to protect the public and the reputation of the profession. The focus of the Tribunal is therefore protective and not punitive. However, specific deterrence and general deterrence, which serve to protect the public, depend upon sanctions having a punitive effect.

With that protective focus in mind, the Tribunal considers a range of factors in determining penalty including the nature and seriousness of the conduct, any plea of guilty, the relative importance in the case of specific deterrence and general deterrence, past disciplinary history, evidence of character, and other mitigating factors such as medical or psychological evidence.

Penalties imposed in other cases may be a useful guide to proportionality, and parity is important, but every case necessarily involves a different combination of factors. Each case is different.

As both parties submitted, the Tribunal must decide for itself the characterisation of the conduct found proved and the appropriate penalty. No agreement between a regulator and a regulated practitioner can supplant that duty. Weight will nevertheless be given to a joint submission on penalty, particularly where, as here, the practitioner is legally represented and it is obvious that the outcome has been carefully considered and negotiated.[32]

1. Under section 302 of the Uniform Law the parties agree, and jointly submit, the appropriate penalty is:
   1. A reprimand
   2. [Mr Perry] is to undertake an additional 5 hours of CPD [Continuing Professional Development] within the next 12 months as provided by the [VLSC].
   3. Within 30 days of the Tribunal's orders, [Mr Perry] is to make a donation of $5,000 to a charity as approved by the [VLSC].[33]
2. The joint submissions contend (summarised):
   • The penalty for Mr Squirrell is the same as Mr Perry's as both are equally culpable and, whilst separate, contributed in equal part to the outcome which was the display of the notice in the four lifts at Owen Dixon Chambers East;
   • The matter has been ongoing for over two years, and Mr Perry's financial circumstances are such it is a significant penalty;
   • The effect and purpose of a disciplinary proceeding is the protection of the public, the protection of the reputation of the legal profession and the maintenance of professional standards;
   • A reprimand serves to effect specific and general deterrence; and
   • It is appropriate the penalty be directly responsive to the harm. The proposed donation is in lieu of a fine. Under section 302(1) the Tribunal is able to make any order it thinks fit in imposing a penalty. The charity to which the donation will be made is the Fitzroy Legal Service a community legal centre which delivers a service to the LGBTIQA+ members of the community through its Q+ Law program.[34]
3. Mr Shaw made a plea in mitigation on Mr Perry's behalf and made the following submissions (summarised):
   • Mr Perry has been in legal practice for 45 years, 40 years as a barrister. His practice in the common law shrunk to 10% of its previous volume during the COVID-19 pandemic and never recovered. Although now largely retired from practice, he volunteers and does pro bono work for the Southport Community Legal Service in criminal and family violence cases. He is now supported by the aged pension which is supplemented by occasional paying briefs.[35]
   • Within four weeks of the notice being placed in the lifts, Mr Perry '...reflected on the matter, ... he displayed insight into his conduct and accepted that the note was offensive.'[36] Mr Perry has read the letter by Mr McDermott and fully appreciates the note is offensive on the grounds detailed above.
   • Further, Mr Perry admits by authoring the notice he enabled the actions of another, Mr Squirrell, and was reckless as to whether it was publicly displayed.[37]
   • Mr Shaw submitted a reprimand will '...sully his reputation and he will be severely embarrassed.'[38] The embarrassment will emanate from family, friends, colleagues, the profession and the public becoming aware of his conduct. Mr Shaw submitted this was 'both educative and a denunciation of his actions' and meets the purpose of general deterrence.[39]
   • Mr Shaw submitted Mr Perry is not homophobic. For twenty years he attended at St Agnes Anglican Church in Glenhuntly, a congregation which openly welcomed attendance by members of the LGBTQI community. He was a lay Deacon and worked alongside Vicar Nigel Wright.[40]
4. In a character reference written on his behalf, Mr Perry was described as mild in demeanour, and that his actions were out of character and not reflective of his opinions.[41] The evidence of Mr Perry's otherwise good character is supported by the submissions about his voluntary pro bono work and ministrations in his church.
5. I take into account Mr Perry's plea of guilty to the serious charge of professional misconduct which is an indicator of his remorse. I note he has no prior matters alleged against him.
6. He has admitted the offensive imputations in the notice he authored and that he was reckless as to whether it was displayed.
7. The factual context of this charge is unique. It has the hall marks of a university 'prank' were it not for the age of the protagonists and the offensive nature of the notice. Mr Perry does not have any prior disciplinary matters alleged against him and has led a successful career as a barrister, until this incident. It constitutes a serious lapse of judgment.
8. I accept the proposed penalties are appropriate as meeting the purposes of specific and general deterrence, as well as protection of the community and maintaining the standards of the legal profession.
9. A reprimand is a strong sanction. Judge Hampel stated it is '...[A] powerful statement to the practitioner of how far below the standard of their profession they have fallen by their misconduct. It is in that sense a more personal sanction... A reprimand goes to their personal integrity.'[42]
10. I accept the submission a reprimand is a substantial penalty and carries considerable personal cost. It serves the purposes of both general and specific deterrence. I accept the likelihood of a repetition of the conduct is minute.
11. The completion of an additional five Continuing Professional Development units over the next 12 months, as approved by the VLSC, is aimed at relevant education for Mr Perry and will serve to enhance the standing of the legal profession. It also has the added advantage of protection of the community.
12. The donation of $5,000.00 to a charity is a significant financial penalty for Mr Perry, given his financial situation. In addition, the financial penalty is remedial in nature and for the benefit of the community as the donation will support the legal services provided to the LGBTQI members of the community through the Fitzroy Legal Service Q+ Law program.

1. With respect to costs, Section 303(1) of the Uniform Law provides:

The designated tribunal must make orders requiring a lawyer whom it has found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct to pay costs (including costs of the designated local regulatory authority and the complainant), unless the designated tribunal is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.

1. The VLSC has made an application for costs and Mr Perry concedes there are no exceptional circumstances.
2. I agree with this position and order Mr Perry pay costs fixed in the agreed sum of $2,145.00.

[1] A related proceeding was commenced against Mr Robert Squirrell (VCAT J53/2024). Pursuant to the Tribunal's orders of 27 November 2024, the two proceedings were heard and determined together. The Tribunal's decision in the matter of Mr Squirrell is Victorian Legal Services Commissioner v Squirrell (Legal Practice) [2025] VCAT 344.

[2] Particulars and Contentions annexed to the Amended Application for Orders dated 21 August 2024 ('Particulars and Contentions') [4], Tribunal Book ('TB') 8-9.

[3] This background is drawn from Particulars and Contentions [1] - [8], TB 8-9.

[4] In email correspondence with Mr Perry during October and November 2022 the Chairman of Barrister's Chambers Limited advised Mr Perry they had undertaken a 'limited, targeted search of [email] material' which had identified Mr Perry's email to Mr Squirrell attaching the notice, see attachments to letter from Respondent dated 21 December 2022, TB 76 - 77. On 7 February 2023 the President of The Victorian Bar wrote to all members informing them that '...a number of member emails were accessed in mid-August 2022 as part of an investigation undertaken by Barristers' Chambers Limited (BCL) following an offensive notice being posted in the Own Dixon Chambers East lifts on 10 August 2022.' Following an explanation as to 'What occurred?' the email stated: 'First, the Bar Council and BCL assure members that no such access will occur in future, unless required or authorised at law.'. This email was not in the TB in these proceedings but was in the proceedings concerning Mr Squirrell at Tribunal Book pages 53 - 55.

[6] This Investigation of the Complaint and VCAT Proceedings is derived from the Particulars and Contentions [9] - [25], TB 9 - 10.

[7] Section 6 of the Uniform Law defines designated tribunal as (a) a court or tribunal specified or described in a law of this jurisdiction for the purposes of a provision, or part of a provision, of this Law in which the term is used; or (b) a member or officer so specified or described of such a court or Tribunal. Section 10(3) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic) provides that VCAT is the designated Tribunal.

[8] Amended Application for Orders dated 21 August 2024 Charge 1, TB 5.

[9] Joint Submissions as to determination and penalty dated 15 October 2024 ('Joint Submissions') [48], TB 134 - 135.

[10] [2018] VCAT 982 ('Hopkinson').

[11] Hopkinson [5] (footnotes omitted).

[12] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 9 April 2025) 'discredit'.

[13] Macquarie Dictionary (online at 9 April 2025) 'discreditable'.

[14] Joint Submissions [53], TB 135 - 136.

[15] (Legal Practice) [2016] VCAT 439 ('Lewenberg').

[17] [2019] QCAT 272 ('Merkin').

[19] (Review and Regulation) [2024] VCAT 232 ('Goode').

[21] (Review and Regulation) [2019] VCAT 1180.

[22] Joint submissions [25] and Statutory declaration of the Respondent dated c. 10 October 2022, TB 45.

[23] Council of the Bar Association of New South Wales v EFA [2021] NSW CA 339 [39].

[24] Mistakenly referred to as an 'anagram' in the notice.

[25] Letter from Christopher McDermott of Counsel to the Applicant dated 30 November 2022, TB 60 (emphasis in original). At TB 61, Mr McDermot noted his permission for his letter to be available to the author of the notice, 'to get a sense of how I feel and felt.'

[26] Letter from Christopher McDermott of Counsel to the Applicant dated 30 November 2022, TB 61 (emphasis in original).

[27] (Review and Regulation) [2018] VCAT 1498 ('Hyatt').

[28] Hyatt [29], referring to Commonwealth v Director Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate [46], [50] and [58] (footnotes omitted).

[30] (Legal Practice) (Corrected) [2021] VCAT 549 ('VLSC v OAG').

[31] (Legal Practice) [2023] VCAT 253 ('Flynn').

[32] Flynn [42] citing VLSC v OAG [35] - [38].

[34] Joint Submissions [58] - [68].

[41] Exhibit 3, Reference Letter by former Magistrate Mr John A O'Brien dated 23 March 2025.