The matter involved unfounded allegations against the legal system, including Supreme Court judges
The Victoria Supreme Court has ordered the removal of a lawyer from the Supreme Court roll over unfounded allegations against the legal system, including judges of the Supreme Court.
In Victorian Legal Services Board v Mericka [2024] VSC 1, the Victorian Legal Services Board (VLSB) successfully obtained an order to remove Peter Mericka's name from the Supreme Court roll in an uncontested application.
The VSLB argued that Mericka was not fit and proper to be a lawyer and was likely to remain unfit indefinitely. The core of this recommendation stemmed from Mericka's history of making unfounded allegations against various individuals, including the former Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria, the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (VLSC), and judges of the Supreme Court.
In its decision, the Victoria Supreme Court highlighted Mericka's failure to challenge any evidence presented, his refusal to appear at the hearing and his reasons for not contesting the application. The judgment emphasised the importance of Mericka's role as an officer of the court and his obligations toward it.
Mericka faced disciplinary proceedings in 2014 for his unfounded allegations, eventually pleading guilty. Despite this, Mericka continued publishing in 2017, making various claims against legal entities and government lawyers and alleging corruption within the legal system.
In 2021, the VLSB refused to renew Mericka's practising certificate, suggesting he was not fit unless certain allegations were removed from his website. Mericka executed an undertaking in December 2021, promising not to post certain publications. He removed publications from his website, but some months later, he posted further publications online making allegations directed at the VLSC, the VLSB, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
The court focused on specific aspects of Mericka's conduct, particularly his repeated and unfounded allegations against judges and other individuals involved in the legal system. The judgment underscored the gravity of these allegations, characterising them as scandalous, vexatious, and a gross breach of ethical standards.
Examining Mericka's failure to act with courtesy during legal practice, the court considered the discourteous nature of his correspondence and online publications. This included disrespectful comments about judges and legal professionals. The court found that he had the duty to act with courtesy in legal practice.
The court also scrutinised Mericka's conduct in the context of legal practice, such as his correspondence with Gadens and email communications, which the court found discourteous and unprofessional.
The judgment concluded that such conduct, combined with the broader pattern of unfounded and scandalous allegations, was likely to be prejudicial to the administration of justice and could bring the legal profession into disrepute.
