Unmasked Adelaide lawyer hears ruling from Supreme Court that abuses of ‘imbalanced’ power relationships can extend to social events

A recently unmasked Adelaide barrister accused of sexual misconduct against a junior female has heard the state’s highest court rule abuses of “imbalanced” power relationships can extend to social events.

• Alleged ‘sex pest’ barrister unmasked

Abuses of “imbalanced” power relationships can extend to social events, the state’s highest court has ruled, as it unmasked the identity of an Adelaide barrister accused of sexual misconduct against a junior female colleague.

Married father-of-two Enzo George Belperio, 41, has been fighting to keep his name secret after being accused of “inappropriate behaviour” towards a young solicitor in 2020.

The commercial dispute barrister, a lawyer for almost 20 years most recently at Bar Chambers in the city, denies wrongdoing and is not charged with any crimes.

But in a major victory for the vital “open justice” principle, the Court of Appeal on Friday rejected his claims that revealing his identity would create “undue hardship” to his wife of 10 years.

Enzo Belperio. Picture: Facebook

They rejected his claims that he needed to avoid damage to his professional reputation and mental health, which they said was a “personal interest”.

In a unanimous ruling, the state’s top judge, Supreme Court Chief Justice Chris Kourakis, with Justice Laura Stein and Justice Chris Bleby, dismissed his suppression order bid that, if successful, could have kept his identity secret indefinitely.

They found suppressing information was not only contrary to open justice, it would diminish public confidence.

Mr Belperio, who the court heard only told his wife of the allegations in early September, was named in parliament last year.

While his legal team have claimed in court this was tabled by “mistake”, the judges found this meant he was already identified in public.

Mr Belperio, a St Peter’s College graduate who hails from one of SA’s most successful Italian hospitality families behind the Fasta Pasta empire, is accused of “inappropriate and uninvited physical and sexual contact … or advances” to the woman, known only as F.

The industry watchdog, the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner, laid charges in 2022, alleging this included unwanted sexual advances such as groping.

While specific details cannot be published, the court detailed the events at a bar that were “closely connected to Mr Belperio’s practice as a barrister and F’s employment in a firm which often briefed him”.

Enzo Belperio. Picture: Facebook

“It is alleged that F attended that occasion because Mr Belperio asked a more senior solicitor in that firm to ask her to attend,” the judges stated.

“That conduct, on its face, involves two imbalances of power, found in the hierarchy of the legal profession. The charge alleged that Mr Belperio further abused the imbalances of power inherent in his relative seniority … in the way that he conducted himself towards the junior solicitor in a public bar and later in his Chambers.”

Friday’s landmark ruling, which now creates a legal precedent, found that should charges be proven “he is likely to be found to have behaved in a way which brings his fitness to practice as legal practitioner into question”.

“The administration of the law is premised on respect for the equal human dignity of all persons,” they found.

The judges rejected claims from Mr Belperio’s high-powered barrister, Dick Whitington KC, that “even if proved, the professional misconduct might not lead to a finding that he is not a fit and proper person to practice law.

They found “abuses of imbalanced power relationships within the profession can extend to social interactions”.

“The conduct of practitioners in social settings is capable of constituting unsatisfactory professional conduct or … misconduct,” they ruled.

The judges have since ordered the case return to a disciplinary tribunal to rule on the unproven allegations.

Unmasked Adelaide lawyer Enza Belperio. Picture: Supplied

Enzo Belperio. Picture: Facebook

The court’s landmark 84-page judgment was published after industry profession outrage at the secrecy many lawyers argued is not afforded to other professions.

The Chief Justice found courts should only resort to secrecy orders in “rare cases”.

“Subjecting judicial proceedings to public and professional scrutiny is in the interests of justice,” he said.

“Because it informs the public as to how the judicial arm of government functions.

“(It) promotes sound judicial decision-making, safeguards the integrity of … proceedings, and enhances public confidence in the administration of justice.”

The court found that a “bare statement” a person has been charged with a crime or disciplinary action – if the truth – was not defamatory.

SA’s appeal court had earlier overturned a tribunal decision to dismiss charges on a legal technicality, which related to the commissioner’s ability to lay charges from a previous investigation.

The judges criticised reports from leading criminal psychologist, Luke Broomhall, who gave evidence behind closed doors in September after being called as a “personal favour” from fellow Bar Chambers barrister David Edwardson KC.

In a statement outside court on Friday, Mr Belperio said: “My physical and mental health and wellbeing have suffered as a result of being subjected to these allegations.

“I look forward to the opportunity to defend myself at the upcoming Tribunal hearing, clearing my name and restoring my reputation.”

He said he was “shocked and confused” about F’s July 2020 complaint that “I harassed her in a social setting”.

“The allegation is untrue, and I deny any wrongdoing,” he said.

He co-operated with the investigation, which obtained “conflicting” witness statements that will now be subject of a tribunal hearing, he added. The alleged complainant declined to comment.