SA tribunal refuses to reopen conduct inquiry into barrister Claire O’Connor SC over complaint from anonymous male lawyer

She stood up against sexual harassment on social media – five years later, this top barrister has been forced to defend new attacks from anonymous peers.

A top barrister who spoke out on social media against sexual harassment in the profession has fought off an anonymous male lawyer’s bid to reignite unprofessional conduct allegations against her.

On Thursday, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal ruled Claire O’Connor SC’s recent online commentary did not warrant reopening its five-year-old case against her.

The tribunal heard that, in June, Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner Greg May had received an anonymous complaint about Ms O’Connor’s use of Facebook.

In it, a male lawyer highlighted Ms O’Connor’s posts about former federal attorney-general Christian Porter and overseas moves to declare misogyny a hate crime.

Frances Nelson SC, for Mr May, said such comments amounted to an attack upon the character of South Australia’s male lawyers.

Barrister Claire O'Connor SC in her North Tce office. Picture Mark Brake.

“She wrote ‘misogyny a hate crime, have we enough cells if we did that here’ and that people would ‘be stuck for lawyers’ because ‘many would be charged themselves’,” she said.

“The only inference capable of being drawn by a reader of that post is that the majority of male lawyers in SA are engaging in criminal conduct and should be in prison.

“Not for one moment do we suggest someone should be subjected to sexual harassment – the complaint is the slur that is put on unnamed members of the profession.”

Julian Burnside QC, for Ms O’Connor, said the matter should only be reopened if Mr May took the witness stand for cross-examination.

“The fifth anniversary of this matter is in a few days’ time … it just has to come to an end,” he said.

“These (recent) posts do not involve any misconduct … it’s astonishing to think things which are supported by other lawyers would be thought to be misconduct.”

Ms O'Connor and her supporters leave the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Picture: Sean Fewster.

In October 2016, Ms O’Connor posted claims on Facebook that she had been sexually harassed or bullied by an unnamed judge.

She also said the profession overvalues parentage, gender, skin colour and sexual preference – the post followed her unsuccessful bid for the presidency of the Law Society of SA.

The post went viral and split the state’s lawyers over questions of gender equity and the need for and manner of change within the profession.

After Ms O’Connor said she did not want her claims investigated, she was the subject of inquiries by the society and Mr May.

He determined Ms O’Connor’s conduct to be “unsatisfactory”, reprimanded her and ordered she apologise.

After doing so, she appealed against his determination – saying she regretted using social media but maintained the need “to bring about change”.

In April this year, an Equal Opportunity Commission report found sexual harassment, bullying and intimidation went all the way to the top of the profession.

That report included assertions of gross and lewd actions by sitting judicial officers.

Two months later, Ms O’Connor’s appeal was heard by the tribunal and, within days of her giving evidence, the anonymous complaint was made.

Ms O'Connor has appealed against findings her online commentary about sexual harassment amounted to “unsatisfactory” conduct by a lawyer. Picture Matt Turner.

On Thursday, Mr Burnside said the newer posts had been online for weeks, if not months, before the appeal hearing.

He said Mr May should have to give evidence as to why Ms O’Connor was not questioned about them during that hearing, as well as the “purpose and method” of his inquiries.

Ms Nelson said seeking to cross-examine her client was “frankly insulting” and that the posts called into question Ms O’Connor’s apology for the 2016 comments.

In his ruling, tribunal member Simon Ower QC said reopening a matter that had “a regrettable history” was not in the public interest.

The newer posts were, he said, unlikely to have any bearing on his decision about Ms O’Connor’s appeal and did not amount to a challenge to her credit.

He will hand down his decision on the appeal at a later date.