In this explosive interview, Victorian lawyer Thomas Flitner exposes what he describes as systemic abuse of power by the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner (VLSB+C) — a regulator he claims has acted with impunity, using unlawful delegations, discriminatory tactics, and procedural sabotage to destroy his legal career. 🧾 Invalid Appointments: Thomas reveals that Alice Duggan, once a student at his firm, was later appointed as VLSB’s Manager of Compliance and used that role to appoint Damian Neylon and Marriott Hubble-Smith as auditors — despite lacking legal delegation. These appointments, he alleges, were invalid under Section 44 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law, yet used to justify the takeover of his practice. ⚠️ Weaponised Compliance Orders: Under intense Management System Directions (MSDs), Thomas was forced to produce monthly reports for over 300 files. Despite complying, the VLSB claimed non-compliance and seized his firm on 11 October 2023 — without warning. ❌ Suppression of Complaints: After Hubble-Smith allegedly caused medical harm to a staff member, Thomas raised it with WorkSafe. The Board ignored his concerns, accused him of obstructing the audit, and never disclosed the complaint in proceedings. 🕵️♂️ Surveillance, Discrimination & Retaliation: Thomas details disturbing allegations: • Racist remarks by Neylon • Warnings that he was “under watch” • Misuse of his Asperger’s diagnosis to label him unfit — now the subject of a discrimination complaint • A complete lack of procedural fairness 📉 No Complaints. No Oversight. No Accountability. No clients complained. No court made findings against him. Yet the Board shut down his firm and handed it to others — without notice, compensation, or due process. 💼 Final Blow: His attempts to raise concerns were ignored. Recordings were barred. Reports were written without input. Charges were laid using distorted facts. Duggan’s conflict of interest was never addressed. 🔍 Why this matters: Thomas’s story is a warning about unchecked regulatory power: • Unlawful delegations • Disability weaponised • Complaints suppressed • Whistleblowers punished 📌 If you believe in justice, the rule of law, and institutional accountability, share this video. 💬 Comment if you or someone you know has faced abuse of power. 📢 Subscribe for more investigations into legal corruption and whistleblower cases.
00:00Okay, and you also said that Ms. Duggan was responsible for the appointment and I've seen paperwork that you've given me to that effect. Can you remind me again whether she's a member of the board or what her position is exactly?
00:22She was a manager there. I don't recall exactly what position she was, but she was a manager of, I think, compliance, but she was not a delegated authority from the legal board to make that delegation decision.
00:38And also she made the second delegation decision from Ms. Hubble-Marriott partner at Russell Kennedy to come in around about August, September 2022, a year later, to do a second audit.
00:52So, we've had a look at the legislation and Section 44 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act, which sets out the board's power of delegations, clarifies that the board cannot delegate its authority to further delegate the authority.
01:15So, all delegates of the board cannot themselves appoint delegates to carry out external intervention or audit.
01:30So, that appointment was invalid, and we've also gone through the annual report of the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner's Office from 2022.
01:46And it notes that the delegation of Ms. Duggan was revoked because it says that her job title had changed from the manager of regulatory compliance to the manager of investigations.
02:10But then, very strangely, the regulatory provision that it cites for the authority for the revocation sets out the basis for the exercise of that authority.
02:30And it makes it explicitly clear that it only applies in circumstances where the person who had been appointed as delegate originally is found to lack the character or the competence that a delegate must have.
02:50And it's not simply a provision that can be invoked without necessary implications and necessary inferences about the character and suitability of that person to carry out their job.
03:13And, more importantly for you, it essentially invalidates the appointment and, well, in your case, Mr. Nailon's appointment was not valid to begin with, but if there was any doubt in that respect, then because the authority pursuant to which Ms. Duggan had extended the delegation had been revoked,
03:41but that delegation of Mr. Nailon, or that appointment of Mr. Nailon as a delegate, would have also been revoked even if it was right.
03:51Yes.
03:52So, did the board inform you about this matter?
03:55No, not at all. Not to date. Not to today's date. Nothing has received any information about that.
04:01And, I'm aware that they are continuing to persecute you through VCAT. Have they revised their statements about the history of your dealings with them? In that, have they corrected the situation about the Nailon appointment?
04:23Not at all.
04:24Not at all.
04:25So, they continue to maintain that the Nailon appointment and all the consequences that stemmed from it were legitimately achieved and that you should continue to suffer the adverse consequences of that appointment?
04:45That's correct. That's correct. Which culminated in the letter dated the 11th of October 2023, saying that I hadn't complied with Damien Nailon's management systems directives, which was to provide details, itemised details of every file out of 300 of clients we had, every month for 12 months, which we complied with, based on what they told me they wanted to have as a tabulation.
05:08So, I had to employ a staff member solely every month, basically for days, to look at every file and everything that happened in every file for the Legal Services Commissioner to look at.
05:24So, it was really an onerous compliance and I've never heard of another legal practice having to go to that extent of compliance.
05:32And what was the basis for the issuance of those management system directions?
05:38They believed that I was not on top of the files and I wasn't managing my staff correctly, which I had done for many years prior.
05:47This was 2021, end of 2021.
05:50So, that started for 12 months, which led afterwards to Hubble Smith coming in to follow up with a second audit.
05:59So, and also I'd like to add that when Damien Nailon was there, he cornered my staff about this other court matter and how it was being successful there, spoke to me in person, that he'd already spoken to that senior associate when she'd taken, prior to coming in for his interview with me and my staff.
06:18And she had made allegations that I was interested in her, which was news to me.
06:23She'd already had a boyfriend and we had socialised.
06:26She'd been there for five years.
06:28I had no interest in her because at that point in time I was still in a relationship and had a young son and she knew all that.
06:35She'd even been to his baptism.
06:37But he also said that I shouldn't have Chinese and Indian clients because they don't pay and I shouldn't take on mask cases because my website at the time, we were having a lot of success against the Victorian government for mask cases and people being fined and overturning those fines.
06:52And he said the government didn't like that.
06:54So he was putting me on notice that I was under the watchful eye of the Victorian government and also that I'd been a Liberal candidate in 2002 for Liberal Party.
07:03So I was under special watch because of that.
07:06And I took that as a threat.
07:08And I answered and in my response to Nalan's point that I have Asperger's, I also responded to that in my response after his report saying I shouldn't be singled out and ostracised and treated differently because of my Asperger's.
07:26So you're saying that you weren't losing in court and your clients were not complaining about you.
07:33No.
07:34So they didn't really have any reasonable basis to conclude that you weren't doing your job properly.
07:42No.
07:43But I'd like to add also that in January 2019 when I was undertaking cancer treatment, they decided then to send an auditor in, a trust auditor from the Law Institute.
07:53Now this was a follow up for many years from the success in 2014 of my Supreme Court of Appeal, Victoria, where I received just under $100,000 in costs against the Legal Services Commissioner.
08:05And at that point, and there was no complaint, it was a family matter of a late mum's estate.
08:13My brothers didn't complain.
08:14They got their inheritance.
08:15There was no complaint.
08:16They initiated their own complaint, the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner, which went on for five and a half years until I was charged at the end of June 2024, which was like eight months after they had moved in and taken my business.
08:30But why they suspended me for two years until October 2025 was based on apparently not having followed the management system directions of Naylan and not having let Marriott Hubble-Smith come in after day one for further days to continue her audit.
08:52And the reason being I didn't let Hubbell Marriott and the reason being I didn't let Hubbell Marriott back in was on the Friday she cornered my junior graduate lawyer for over an hour, which led to her having serious health issues and hyperventilating and ending up in hospital that Friday night.
09:09So I wrote to Hubbell Marriott and said, you cannot continue your audit.
09:12I've had to report this to WorkSafe because my staff are now under health danger.
09:19And ultimately, she still turned up at my office on Monday morning and was arguing that she had a right to continue on.
09:28I said, I've written to Mr Anstie, manager of regulatory compliance, who was part of this appointment under Alice Duggan, that he should put in processes and procedures that she can continue her audit.
09:42But I don't want my staff fearing for their safety or ending up with hyperventilating or having medical conditions.
09:48Did she deny the allegations that were being made against her?
09:53No, she didn't. She just said that I have the statutory right to continue. You're prohibiting me.
09:58I said, I'm not prohibiting you. I'm allowing you to come in, but there have to be procedures put in place.
10:03So you're saying she didn't deny that she had treated your staff?
10:08No, she didn't. No, she didn't deny it. She was just on the mission that she had the statutory right to bulldoze her way in, irrespective of what harm she was causing.
10:18She was already stopping the practice from functioning because she was asking for files from different lawyers who was taking them in the office and taking up their time.
10:26And I was allowing all that. She didn't want to interview me. And I said, I'll only have an interview if I'm allowed to record the interview for my legal rights under the Surveillance Act Victoria.
10:37She said, no. She said, the interview will not take place now. I said, I want this done because I didn't do that when Naylan was here and he was putting serious allegations to me, which were not part of his audit, like the allegation that I was interested in this senior associate.
10:56So she was making up these allegations, having spoken to him prior to him coming in because she'd set the agenda that I wasn't functioning.
11:05So you're saying that you told the Victorian Legal Services Board appointed auditor, Ms. Hubblespeck, that you wanted to exercise your right to record the conversation of which you were...
11:21Party two. Party two. Party two. And she said that if you record the conversation, then she would not engage with you.
11:31That's correct. And I wasn't going to be allowed. Correct.
11:34What did she have to hide?
11:37Well, that's the question. And that was raised on the Monday morning. I said, I've written an email to your manager asking for guidance on moving forward, to which I received a one word response noted.
11:50And nothing further was done to today. And ultimately that led to those charges that they made up for their allegedly not providing the management system directives and prohibiting her from continuing with her audit to say that I was not a fit and proper person on the 11th of October in their letter,
12:10as long as October 2023, to move in, lock me out, take my life's work, sell it off, give me nothing for it and throw me on the street.
12:20I believe it was his staff that noted that she received it also wrote an email to him. And to this day, even in their brief to VCAT, they have not made a mention of any of that correspondence.
12:32They have just blanketly said, I denied her access, even to the point where clients were coming in and she was disrupting the practice standing and shouting around that I had to tell her that I was going to call the police and have her removed.
12:46And she said, yeah, go do it. Then eventually she left and she said, I'll be back, but she never returned. Then she wrote her report without me having any more input, just wrote a report in her own words saying that I didn't comply, that I didn't let her back in.
13:02Didn't mention what she'd done to my staff. And that's been reported to WorkSafe in writing. And it was just left said that apparently I was a bad person again, the narrative.
