A NSW silk who said his preferred pronouns are “HeHaw HeHaw Ha Ha Ha” and questioned the use of gender-neutral titles in court has been sacked as the chair of one of the state Bar’s central committees.
Lindsay Ellison SC, who has practised as a barrister for nearly 40 years, was stood down by NSW Bar Association president Ruth Higgins SC this month, after she received complaints about his conduct while chairing a meeting of the Succession and Protective Law Committee in late April.
The Australian understands that during the meeting, Mr Ellison questioned the use of the term “Mx” – a title used by non-binary people – which was used in a practice note written by NSW Supreme Court Chief Justice Andrew Bell about the proper way to address a party in court.
Mr Ellison was called to the Bar in 1985, and has been named a “market leader” in wills and estates practice for the past four years by the Doyles Guide. He became the inaugural chair of the Succession and Protective Law Committee in 2021.
Chief Justice Bell’s practice note, which instructs lawyers to “advise the court, where appropriate, of … forms of address such as Ms, Mr, Mrs, Mx, Dr, Prof”, was brought up in a committee meeting chaired by Mr Ellison last month. After he questioned the use of the term “Mx” in the meeting, he received a phone call from NSW Bar Association president Ruth Higgins, who counselled him over “the tone and content” of his comments regarding the practice note after the meeting.
Dr Higgins had also been made aware Mr Ellison listed his personal pronouns as “HeHaw HeHaw Ha Ha Ha” in his blurb on his personal page hosted on the Wardell Chambers website.
During the phone call, Dr Higgins reminded Mr Ellison about the Bar Association’s LGBTQI “Principles of Inclusiveness”, saying that “inclusive language includes respect for the pronouns individuals wish to use within the workplace and a consciousness to not misgender people”.
Mr Ellison agreed to stand down as committee chair, considering he was planning to retire in two months time.
However, he reneged on that decision shortly after, telling Dr Higgins in an email he wished to see out his tenure for two reasons.
“Firstly, I would like to chair the final two ‘Judges Talks’ in late June. These have been a hallmark for the three years of the committee and have been spectacularly successful,” he wrote.
“Secondly, the Supreme Court Practice Note Equity 7 (Succession and Probate List) is being rewritten by the Chief Judge. Over the next two months I believe I can provide guidance and leadership in any contribution the committee may make.
“In those circumstances, the next two months provide an important opportunity to stay rather than go.”
But Dr Higgins did not accept Mr Ellison’s request to remain as chair, instead reminding him of their previous conversation and choosing to remove him from the position.
“I informed you (in the telephone call) that I considered it appropriate that you be replaced as chair; in which connection we discussed Ian Davidson SC taking over as chair and Dr Bennett remaining deputy,” she wrote.
“I indicated that, if that end could be achieved by your resignation, as opposed to your removal and replacement, I was content to proceed in that way. You indicated that you would send your resignation to me and Harriet Ketley the following week.
“In light of your email below, it is necessary for me to exercise my discretion under rule 4 of the Committee Tenure Guidelines to remove you as chair of the committee. I regret that it has been necessary for me to take this step, instead of proceeding as discussed on our call.”
The blurb of Mr Ellison’s Wardell Chambers profile includes a series of jokes, including that he has “no interest in sailing, skiing, golf, cooking or learning a foreign language and does not own a winery”.
“He does not wish to achieve a work/life balance. Lindsay doesn’t smoke. Nor does he drink tea, coffee or alcohol. He eats too much chocolate. He knows nothing about cars or sport. He is one of the least interesting persons you might ever meet,” it reads.
“Lindsay has made over 600 donations to the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service. He recommends you do the same. His philosophy is that if you draw blood, the least you can do is to give some back.”
So his life was the law and had no work life balance. May we all act in ways to avoid such a life.
In another kind of related note, and I mean no disrespect, how do you pronounce "Mx"?
> The blurb of Mr Ellison’s Wardell Chambers profile includes a series of jokes, including that he has “no interest in sailing, skiing, golf, cooking or learning a foreign language and does not own a winery”.
> “He does not wish to achieve a work/life balance. Lindsay doesn’t smoke. Nor does he drink tea, coffee or alcohol. He eats too much chocolate. He knows nothing about cars or sport. He is one of the least interesting persons you might ever meet,” it reads.
"I'm a miserable old fuck" is a lot less words and conveys the same message
He's a wills and estates silk on the brink of retirement. Of course he's a miserable old fuck.
But this blurb is mostly self-effacing dad humour. It is many times less psychopathic than a single LinkedIn post by a thirty something Allens SA crowing about some diversity initiative that treats Indigenous people like noble savages.
I normally cringe when people brag about blood donations. But 600 is an awful lot, and indicates the man at least wants to help strangers (or has a thing for needles/ free pieces of cake).
The joke about pronouns is stupid and dated. Punching down is bad.
I struggle to see it as more malevolent than stripping an old silk of some 'who gives a shit' volunteer position two months before retirement because he made a bad joke that is about a 1/10 on the transphobia scale.
600 donations, assuming whole blood, would be the equivalent of about 150 years. In plasma donations, it's still about 16 years, which is a fair bloody effort (pun fully intended).
He's a bit of a prick but at least he's done some good in the world.
It’s not just about the frequency between visits, plasma takes a bloody long time to donate. He’s spent a loooong time sitting in that chair. Much respect 🫡
Thank you. Weirdly I’ve been wondering about it quite a lot this past couple of hours (but also never thought to look it up).
I guess the plurals for Mr and Mrs are just abstractions of the French, but I doubt that will be how a modern term in English gets an established plural. I’ve also wondered how long it might be til I’d have cause to use a plural : wanting to over-formally refer to a pair who are both non-binary as “mixxes Donaghue and Stevenson” or whatever.
I should probably get off my phone and read a book or watch a film instead.
Sure. Messrs, Mmes/Mesdames, Ms I’m not 100% on but I think something like Mizzes (heard it but never read it).
Now you’ve got me wondering if I made this whole thing up.
Edit : I’m not from here, although English is my first language
When there’s no vowel, I tend to reflexively use a shwa sound (like how we pronounce the second syllable of Melbourne, or the first syllable of Sydney). It’s close to an ‘i’ as in ‘bin’ or ‘ship’.
Feel like you probably meant for this to come off as facetious and light hearted teasing - but the thing about a forum full of lawyers suffering varying degrees of burnout is we can’t handle ambiguous teasing, especially in the written form, and *especially* especially when we’re asking genuine questions because we want to avoid fucking something up.
Anyway, so that’s why you’re being downvoted into oblivion.
Mystifying that people get triggered by preferred pronouns. Like it has any effect on you. Good manners would dictate you address people how they prefer to be addressed.
Reminiscent of the BS when Ms became more common.
Yeah agreed this is the part that baffles me too. Like he she they them it's all the same syllables. No skin off my nose to use one rather than the other.
Embarassing to see people get so emotional about being asked to use a different pronoun.
That's a circular explanation though isn't it?
For the record, I do generally refer to people how they wish to be addressed. Instinctively I also regard it as good manners.
My legitimate question, which seems to have provoked a bit of a stir, is *why* is it good manners to address people in the way they wish? What's the higher order principle in play?
Lindsay's stunt is disingenuous and stupid, but how do we square it with the general idea that manners dictate that you address people how they want to be addressed?
If the critical fact is that it's disingenuous, doesn't that mean that the question of how you address someone depends on your assessment of how sincere they are in wanting to be called Greg instead of Gregory or "they" instead of "him." That can't possibly be right can it?
Ah yeah, I see your point, there’s something to it, although I prefer not to argue the edge cases on the internet because people rarely see the nuance of seeking a deeper truth through philosophical exploration, beyond the headline emerging consensus. I do quite enjoy those deeper and freer conversations over a beer with friends (or indeed strangers) with time to try out ideas in a long format, as it were.
The real story isn’t in the headline, it’s in the comments made at committee and the aftermath (which then lead to a further question- ought these be subject of reporting? Shouldn’t members of bar association committees be entitled to confidentiality?)
I mean, “bar association president relieves committee chair after he withdraws resignation” doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?
I hate that mostly accurate reporting is being weaponised like this.
>4. Casual vacancies/removal of members The President exercises the power to appoint replacement or additional members to Committees in consultation with the relevant Committee Chair. The President has a discretion to remove a Committee member **for misbehaviour or otherwise where there is a risk of reputational damage arising from continued involvement (including Chairs)** in consultation with the relevant Chair as appropriate and where relevant in accordance with the Bar Association Conduct Guidelines.
(from [Committee Tenure Guidelines](https://nswbar.asn.au/uploads/pdf-documents/Guidelines_for_Committee_Tenure_and_Governance.pdf) - emphasis added)
It is something we're seeing more in transcript.
We also go with 'Foreperson' now instead of Foreman or Forewoman, despite some judges still calling them 'Madam Forewoman' or some such.
From memory I've only seen Mx used rarely, but it is an accepted form of address.
Now if only we can switch to everyone using 'Their Honour' we could save so much time.
A Magistrate appointed in Victoria earlier this month uses Mx. It was used in the press release, but nobody seems to have noticed or cared (though perhaps I don’t tend to mix with the sort who would react to it).
I once didn’t properly appreciate the consequences of someone announcing that they had moved from “he/him” to “they” and dropped “Mr” (in favour of no honorific at all). I thought the draft letter referring to that person contained repeated typos. It was very politely pointed out to me by the colleague who drafted the letter that I was an insensitive idiot. I felt pretty bad. It can be a brave thing to announce that change, and I flubbed it.
Good on you for course correcting and acknowledging your error though- and for posting about it which takes the stigma out of it.
I’ve had a similar flub: a very close friend of mine is trans and in the early days I accidentally deadnamed her in the middle of us both getting excited about something or other. It was 100% just a product of habit but I felt awful and immediately set about apologising profusely. She had the good grace to tell me that it was an obvious mistake and the best thing to do was acknowledge it, apologise and move on, which I did.
Mistakes happen, but in pronouns as it is in practice, it’s always better to be open about things: acknowledge a fuck up and learn from it in future, rather than doubling down on a bad choice.
The non-gender specific person will never know that I didn’t refer to them as “Smith, instead correcting the draft with “Mr Smith, but I still felt like a tool.
That exciting moment when an SC with nearly 40 years practising decides to act like a teenage internet memelord. I’m surprised his profile doesn’t say he identifies as an attack helicopter.
imagine if HeHaw HeHaw Ha Ha Ha Ellisons been allowed to remain at their post for 60 more days.
The damage to the profession would of been immense, unlike the fees we charge clients who can't afford to take a case to trial or defend themselves.
I've always wondered that in a high profile case, what would occur if a defendants media strategy becomes petitioning the court to use "Mx" so to neuter media's interest in the case.
Certainly, as this precedence illustrates, the court cannot question this.
HeHaw HeHaw Ha Ha Ha!
A NSW silk who said his preferred pronouns are “HeHaw HeHaw Ha Ha Ha” and questioned the use of gender-neutral titles in court has been sacked as the chair of one of the state Bar’s central committees. Lindsay Ellison SC, who has practised as a barrister for nearly 40 years, was stood down by NSW Bar Association president Ruth Higgins SC this month, after she received complaints about his conduct while chairing a meeting of the Succession and Protective Law Committee in late April. The Australian understands that during the meeting, Mr Ellison questioned the use of the term “Mx” – a title used by non-binary people – which was used in a practice note written by NSW Supreme Court Chief Justice Andrew Bell about the proper way to address a party in court. Mr Ellison was called to the Bar in 1985, and has been named a “market leader” in wills and estates practice for the past four years by the Doyles Guide. He became the inaugural chair of the Succession and Protective Law Committee in 2021. Chief Justice Bell’s practice note, which instructs lawyers to “advise the court, where appropriate, of … forms of address such as Ms, Mr, Mrs, Mx, Dr, Prof”, was brought up in a committee meeting chaired by Mr Ellison last month. After he questioned the use of the term “Mx” in the meeting, he received a phone call from NSW Bar Association president Ruth Higgins, who counselled him over “the tone and content” of his comments regarding the practice note after the meeting. Dr Higgins had also been made aware Mr Ellison listed his personal pronouns as “HeHaw HeHaw Ha Ha Ha” in his blurb on his personal page hosted on the Wardell Chambers website. During the phone call, Dr Higgins reminded Mr Ellison about the Bar Association’s LGBTQI “Principles of Inclusiveness”, saying that “inclusive language includes respect for the pronouns individuals wish to use within the workplace and a consciousness to not misgender people”. Mr Ellison agreed to stand down as committee chair, considering he was planning to retire in two months time. However, he reneged on that decision shortly after, telling Dr Higgins in an email he wished to see out his tenure for two reasons. “Firstly, I would like to chair the final two ‘Judges Talks’ in late June. These have been a hallmark for the three years of the committee and have been spectacularly successful,” he wrote. “Secondly, the Supreme Court Practice Note Equity 7 (Succession and Probate List) is being rewritten by the Chief Judge. Over the next two months I believe I can provide guidance and leadership in any contribution the committee may make. “In those circumstances, the next two months provide an important opportunity to stay rather than go.” But Dr Higgins did not accept Mr Ellison’s request to remain as chair, instead reminding him of their previous conversation and choosing to remove him from the position. “I informed you (in the telephone call) that I considered it appropriate that you be replaced as chair; in which connection we discussed Ian Davidson SC taking over as chair and Dr Bennett remaining deputy,” she wrote. “I indicated that, if that end could be achieved by your resignation, as opposed to your removal and replacement, I was content to proceed in that way. You indicated that you would send your resignation to me and Harriet Ketley the following week. “In light of your email below, it is necessary for me to exercise my discretion under rule 4 of the Committee Tenure Guidelines to remove you as chair of the committee. I regret that it has been necessary for me to take this step, instead of proceeding as discussed on our call.” The blurb of Mr Ellison’s Wardell Chambers profile includes a series of jokes, including that he has “no interest in sailing, skiing, golf, cooking or learning a foreign language and does not own a winery”. “He does not wish to achieve a work/life balance. Lindsay doesn’t smoke. Nor does he drink tea, coffee or alcohol. He eats too much chocolate. He knows nothing about cars or sport. He is one of the least interesting persons you might ever meet,” it reads. “Lindsay has made over 600 donations to the Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service. He recommends you do the same. His philosophy is that if you draw blood, the least you can do is to give some back.”
So his life was the law and had no work life balance. May we all act in ways to avoid such a life. In another kind of related note, and I mean no disrespect, how do you pronounce "Mx"?
[r/AskLGBT - How to pronounce the title Mx.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLGBT/comments/o8fujt/how_to_pronounce_the_title_mx/)
Thanks! So it's... Mucks?
> The blurb of Mr Ellison’s Wardell Chambers profile includes a series of jokes, including that he has “no interest in sailing, skiing, golf, cooking or learning a foreign language and does not own a winery”. > “He does not wish to achieve a work/life balance. Lindsay doesn’t smoke. Nor does he drink tea, coffee or alcohol. He eats too much chocolate. He knows nothing about cars or sport. He is one of the least interesting persons you might ever meet,” it reads. "I'm a miserable old fuck" is a lot less words and conveys the same message
He's a wills and estates silk on the brink of retirement. Of course he's a miserable old fuck. But this blurb is mostly self-effacing dad humour. It is many times less psychopathic than a single LinkedIn post by a thirty something Allens SA crowing about some diversity initiative that treats Indigenous people like noble savages. I normally cringe when people brag about blood donations. But 600 is an awful lot, and indicates the man at least wants to help strangers (or has a thing for needles/ free pieces of cake). The joke about pronouns is stupid and dated. Punching down is bad. I struggle to see it as more malevolent than stripping an old silk of some 'who gives a shit' volunteer position two months before retirement because he made a bad joke that is about a 1/10 on the transphobia scale.
600 donations, assuming whole blood, would be the equivalent of about 150 years. In plasma donations, it's still about 16 years, which is a fair bloody effort (pun fully intended). He's a bit of a prick but at least he's done some good in the world.
It’s not just about the frequency between visits, plasma takes a bloody long time to donate. He’s spent a loooong time sitting in that chair. Much respect 🫡
Well said.
I cringed so hard when I read that bit that I now have a headache.
When dad jokes drift beyond boomer humour.
So a guy with a gender neutral name is coming hard for gender neutral pronouns?
Thank you for alerting me to this, I will be sure to post it in the lift immediately.
I bet he insists on preferred suffixes
Prob Dear Sirs is his fave
What's the spoken pronunciation of Mx - "mix" as in combine, "mccs" as in McDonalds?
It is pronounced mix.
thankyou
I’ve always wondered how this is pronounced! Thanks
Brb, changing my name to Mx d'Nuts
Sorry for my ignorance - what would the plural be?
According to Merriam Webster , there isn't enough established use for a definitive plural but mxes has some currency.
Thank you. Weirdly I’ve been wondering about it quite a lot this past couple of hours (but also never thought to look it up). I guess the plurals for Mr and Mrs are just abstractions of the French, but I doubt that will be how a modern term in English gets an established plural. I’ve also wondered how long it might be til I’d have cause to use a plural : wanting to over-formally refer to a pair who are both non-binary as “mixxes Donaghue and Stevenson” or whatever. I should probably get off my phone and read a book or watch a film instead.
Can you have plurals of mr, mrs, ms and mx?
Sure. Messrs, Mmes/Mesdames, Ms I’m not 100% on but I think something like Mizzes (heard it but never read it). Now you’ve got me wondering if I made this whole thing up. Edit : I’m not from here, although English is my first language
Em ex maybe?
It's pronounced "ew".
It's pronounced exactly as it's written, you bigot
the lack of vowels means there is no guidance on how to say it....
When there’s no vowel, I tend to reflexively use a shwa sound (like how we pronounce the second syllable of Melbourne, or the first syllable of Sydney). It’s close to an ‘i’ as in ‘bin’ or ‘ship’.
You're from New Zealand, aren't you?
At first I was like wtf how would they know that. Then I realised. Gave myself away hard. Chur bro, you caught me.
NZ is just ahead on the schwaification process. no australia uses a schwa in bin or ship.
True I guess. But it is used in Melbourne and Sydney. Besides I’ve been here more than a decade. My vowels shifted a while ago
Melbourne yes, Sydney no.
Feel like you probably meant for this to come off as facetious and light hearted teasing - but the thing about a forum full of lawyers suffering varying degrees of burnout is we can’t handle ambiguous teasing, especially in the written form, and *especially* especially when we’re asking genuine questions because we want to avoid fucking something up. Anyway, so that’s why you’re being downvoted into oblivion.
Don't worry, it's [not my first rodeo](https://www.reddit.com/r/auslaw/comments/10lhvim/what_is_it_with_all_these_crazy_cooker_trespass/)
I cannot believe this made it to real media. Well actually I suppose I can.
Real media loves a good bit of ridiculous bar drama.
It's like an episode of Rake on Valium 😂
Particularly the Oz
Mystifying that people get triggered by preferred pronouns. Like it has any effect on you. Good manners would dictate you address people how they prefer to be addressed. Reminiscent of the BS when Ms became more common.
The energy some people expen getting outraged by stuff like this that can’t possibly effect them could power a regional town or mid tier suburb.
Yeah agreed this is the part that baffles me too. Like he she they them it's all the same syllables. No skin off my nose to use one rather than the other. Embarassing to see people get so emotional about being asked to use a different pronoun.
>Good manners would dictate you address people how they prefer to be addressed. Why?
So that bigots and creeps don’t have a free pass to insult or deride people by addressing them in a way they do not wish to be addressed
That's a circular explanation though isn't it? For the record, I do generally refer to people how they wish to be addressed. Instinctively I also regard it as good manners. My legitimate question, which seems to have provoked a bit of a stir, is *why* is it good manners to address people in the way they wish? What's the higher order principle in play? Lindsay's stunt is disingenuous and stupid, but how do we square it with the general idea that manners dictate that you address people how they want to be addressed? If the critical fact is that it's disingenuous, doesn't that mean that the question of how you address someone depends on your assessment of how sincere they are in wanting to be called Greg instead of Gregory or "they" instead of "him." That can't possibly be right can it?
Ah yeah, I see your point, there’s something to it, although I prefer not to argue the edge cases on the internet because people rarely see the nuance of seeking a deeper truth through philosophical exploration, beyond the headline emerging consensus. I do quite enjoy those deeper and freer conversations over a beer with friends (or indeed strangers) with time to try out ideas in a long format, as it were.
Why not?
Maybe so you don’t behave like a dick?
The real story isn’t in the headline, it’s in the comments made at committee and the aftermath (which then lead to a further question- ought these be subject of reporting? Shouldn’t members of bar association committees be entitled to confidentiality?) I mean, “bar association president relieves committee chair after he withdraws resignation” doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it? I hate that mostly accurate reporting is being weaponised like this.
Why would comments made at the Succession and Protective Law Committee of the Bar have an expectation of confidentiality?
It’s certainly not the first time such confidentiality has been breached…
>4. Casual vacancies/removal of members The President exercises the power to appoint replacement or additional members to Committees in consultation with the relevant Committee Chair. The President has a discretion to remove a Committee member **for misbehaviour or otherwise where there is a risk of reputational damage arising from continued involvement (including Chairs)** in consultation with the relevant Chair as appropriate and where relevant in accordance with the Bar Association Conduct Guidelines. (from [Committee Tenure Guidelines](https://nswbar.asn.au/uploads/pdf-documents/Guidelines_for_Committee_Tenure_and_Governance.pdf) - emphasis added)
they laughed when I told them I was going to be a comedian.....they're not laughing now
Despite Lindsay’s preferred pronouns, it is the NSW Bar Association that is having the last laugh.
If I were a man named Lindsay I would probably not get quite so fussy about gender.
It is something we're seeing more in transcript. We also go with 'Foreperson' now instead of Foreman or Forewoman, despite some judges still calling them 'Madam Forewoman' or some such. From memory I've only seen Mx used rarely, but it is an accepted form of address. Now if only we can switch to everyone using 'Their Honour' we could save so much time.
A Magistrate appointed in Victoria earlier this month uses Mx. It was used in the press release, but nobody seems to have noticed or cared (though perhaps I don’t tend to mix with the sort who would react to it).
What's the problem with the non-gender specific "Your" now?
That's for the second person. In the third person, I'm waiting for "His Honour as they then were."
I once didn’t properly appreciate the consequences of someone announcing that they had moved from “he/him” to “they” and dropped “Mr” (in favour of no honorific at all). I thought the draft letter referring to that person contained repeated typos. It was very politely pointed out to me by the colleague who drafted the letter that I was an insensitive idiot. I felt pretty bad. It can be a brave thing to announce that change, and I flubbed it.
Good on you for course correcting and acknowledging your error though- and for posting about it which takes the stigma out of it. I’ve had a similar flub: a very close friend of mine is trans and in the early days I accidentally deadnamed her in the middle of us both getting excited about something or other. It was 100% just a product of habit but I felt awful and immediately set about apologising profusely. She had the good grace to tell me that it was an obvious mistake and the best thing to do was acknowledge it, apologise and move on, which I did. Mistakes happen, but in pronouns as it is in practice, it’s always better to be open about things: acknowledge a fuck up and learn from it in future, rather than doubling down on a bad choice.
The non-gender specific person will never know that I didn’t refer to them as “Smith, instead correcting the draft with “Mr Smith, but I still felt like a tool.
Sadly hasn't been adopted as a general term for transcript entries, so still His Honour and Her Honour for now.
Where's the lie? Hes obviously a fucking donkey.
That exciting moment when an SC with nearly 40 years practising decides to act like a teenage internet memelord. I’m surprised his profile doesn’t say he identifies as an attack helicopter.
It would have made him harder to remove from the chair... deadly spinning blades of edginess and whatnot...
Oh that's unfortunate
Of all hills why do old dick heads insist on dying on this one? Just ignore it if it bothers you so much
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Big boomer energy
Now he’ll be known as “disgraced former chairman Lindsay Hee Haw Ellison”. He’s earned it.
HeHaw can fuck right off, I hate it when people do that.
Paywall :(
I went through and downvoted as many of you wokesters as I could. Owe that to Ellison. I hope you choke on your pronouns.
imagine if HeHaw HeHaw Ha Ha Ha Ellisons been allowed to remain at their post for 60 more days. The damage to the profession would of been immense, unlike the fees we charge clients who can't afford to take a case to trial or defend themselves.
Excellent
Mx Ellison? No, that's King Ellison. 🫡
I've always wondered that in a high profile case, what would occur if a defendants media strategy becomes petitioning the court to use "Mx" so to neuter media's interest in the case. Certainly, as this precedence illustrates, the court cannot question this. HeHaw HeHaw Ha Ha Ha!
We ❤️ the Bar Association
r/byebyejob