Bruce Lehrmann files complaint against Ten lawyer Tasha Smithies over Lisa Wilkinson advice

Bruce Lehrmann has lodged a complaint of professional misconduct against Network Ten lawyer Tasha Smithies over her contentious Logies advice to Lisa Wilkinson.

Ten’s senior litigation counsel Tasha Smithies.

Bruce Lehrmann has lodged a complaint of professional mis­conduct with the NSW legal watchdog against the Ten Network’s most senior lawyer, alleging her advice to Lisa Wilkinson contributed to the long delay in his criminal trial.

In his complaint to the NSW Legal Services Commissioner, Mr Lehrmann alleges Ten’s senior litigation counsel Tasha Smithies “has displayed legal conduct that is wholly inadequate to uphold the fundamental principles of the rule of law”.

Mr Lehrmann claims that conduct began in June 2022, when Ms Smithies advised Wilkinson that she could give the Logies speech that caused his trial for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins to be stayed, through to last week, when she gave sworn evidence in Wilkinson’s claim against Ten for her legal costs.

Mr Lehrmann launched defamation proceedings against both Ten and Wilkinson, but the network’s former star believed it was not properly representing her interests and hired her own legal team, led by Sue Chrysanthou SC.

The network last week accepted it was reasonable for Wilkinson’s to have hired her own legal team, at a cost now expected to exceed $1m, and abandoned its defence against her cross-claim.

In his complaint against Ms Smithies, Mr Lehrmann says that “not only was her advice to Ms Wilkinson (as tendered in the Federal Court) evidence of a dereliction of her legal obligations but particularly egregious against her legal duty when an ongoing court matter is afoot, especially one of a criminal nature when liberty is at stake”.

Lisa Wilkinson at the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney.

Ms Smithies’ conduct “largely contributed” to his criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court being ­vacated by Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, he is claiming.

“Ms Smithies displayed a contempt for the cross-claim proceedings, doubling down on her affidavit evidence that her advice to give the speech was proper and appropriate, yet it resulted in a contempt of court being committed in the ACT,” Mr Lehrmann’s claim states.

It should be noted that while Chief Justice McCallum was withering in her criticism of the Logies speech, no contempt charges were laid against Wilkinson or anyone else involved. However, Justice Michael Lee said in court last week that it was “of some surprise to me in the circumstances” to learn that the then Director of Public Prosecutions had advised Network Ten lawyers that he was not going to press for contempt proceedings to be commenced.

During the defamation proceedings last year, Justice Lee made scathing comments about Ten’s failure to waive legal professional privilege over its advice to Wilkinson, meaning it was difficult for him to decide whether it was reasonable for her to have made the speech.

“It is inconceivable to me that any legally qualified person could have given advice … that a Crown witness saying what was said in that Logies speech was anything other than inadvisable and inappropriate,” Justice Lee said in ­December.

Bruce Lehrmann.

“Now, that causes a difficulty in circumstances where I can’t see the legal advice,” he said.

“I think I have to think that a solicitor would give rational advice, or advice that someone who did a first-year criminal law course would give.”

Justice Lee reserved his judgment in the defamation case, but earlier this month the legal advice Ten gave Wilkinson was included in documents tendered during her cross-claim against the network.

Justice Lee asked Ms Smithies in the witness box last week during the cross-claim matter whether she recalled his remarks about the dilemma he faced in not having been able to see the legal advice on which Wilkinson acted.

Justice Lee: “In the light of that, didn’t you think that the mere fact of disclosing the fact of advice, rather than the content of the advice, wasn’t necessarily helping Wilkinson because I didn’t know what the advice was and … I couldn’t understand how that legal advice could have been given?”

Ms Smithies: “I would accept that, your Honour.”

Michael Elliot (Wilkinson’s barrister): “And Ten still didn’t ­disclose the substance of the ­advice, did it?”

Ms Smithies: “No, it didn’t.”

In the witness box, Ms Smithies accepted Wilkinson was relying on her to warn if there were any risks associated with the Logies speech but did not accept that her advice had exposed the TV host to widespread and damaging public criticism. She also did not accept she had not wanted to publicly admit the speech had been made following advice given by her.

“ I am not professionally or personally embarrassed by the advice that I provided to Ms Wilkinson,” Ms Smithies told the court.

Ms Smithies said an appropriate time for Ten to have disclosed the advice might “perhaps” have been after the Sofronoff inquiry, but conceded it hadn’t happened.

Ms Smithies also said that giving the speech was “the preferred course” because otherwise it might look as if Wilkinson was wavering in the support she had expressed for the preceding 18 months, which would have been “more prejudicial”.

Ms Smithies was approached for comment.

It is understood she had not been notified of the complaint.