Danielah Iacono – Manager, Discipline & Suitability

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The person I hold immediately responsible for the ongoing cover-up of VLSC corruption is Ms Danielah Iacono whose formal title is “Manager, Discipline & Suitability”.

Danielah Iacono - Manager, Discipline & Suitability

Danielah Iacono – Manager, Discipline & Suitability

For a number of years Ms Iacono has known of conduct that should have resulted in the dismissal of miscreant staffers and the laying of disciplinary and possibly criminal charges. But it appears that Ms Iacono has standing as something of a “fixer”; someone who can make problems go away.

It is clear that Ms Iacono is regarded as a skilled and canny negotiator, as evidenced by her attending at my office on behalf of the Commissioner to strike a deal with me about my mistreatment by the VLSC. When she asked me about the likelihood of my reporting matters to IBAC she was careful to state that this question was for her personal information only, and not asked on behalf of the VLSC.

Ms Iacono has also been very careful to avoid any overt admission that a culture of corruption exists in her office, but has tacitly acknowledged it by offering me ‘incentives’ to quietly move forward and let sleeping dogs lie.

I have suggested to Ms Iacono on no less than 3 occasions that she should become a whistleblower and disclose what she knows. But Ms Iacono appears to have faith in those above and below her, and has ignored my suggestions. (I do understand that becoming a whistleblower would be quite damaging to Ms Iacono’s career, but at the same time it would allow her some comfort in knowing that she had eventually chosen the right path.)

Danielah Iacono must resign or be dismissed

I admit quite openly that the purpose of my reference to Ms Iacono in this, my first blast of the whistle against corruption in the office of the VLSC, is to have Ms Iacono removed from her position of power. While I initially saw Ms Iacono as a person of integrity, this changed immediately when, after she had arranged for the waiving of $80,000 in improperly awarded costs (see under the heading “Gift of $80,000” at Fiona McLeay – Legal Services Commissioner), I was disgusted with her reply to a question I asked her in a telephone conversation some days after.

I said to Danielah: “With all that you know of what has happened between me and your office over the years, do you believe I’ve been treated fairly?

Danielah replied: “Peter, I really don’t want to go over the past; I’d rather look forward to the future.”

This confirmed for me Danialah’s preference for cover-up over honesty and integrity.

I believe that the exit of Ms Iacono will result in a full investigation into mismanagement and corruption that has festered in the office of the VLSC for the best part of a decade. I believe that Ms Iacono will be the first of many whose positions at the VLSC will fall vacant in due course. If conducted properly such an investigation will also see former officers of the VLSC who have quietly slipped into into other government departments plucked out and dealt with. (A Senior Investigator who is the subject of allegations of serious criminal offences has moved out of the VLSC and now holds a position in Victoria Police!)

I will present a full case against Ms Iacono and others over coming weeks, with reference to letters, emails and audio recordings.  But for the time being, it is sufficient to say that Ms Iacono’s continuing role as Manager, Discipline & Suitability is utterly untenable. Why? Because Ms Iacono knows that her office has perpetrated and perpetuated injustice, and she has deliberately chosen to avoid taking any action to properly address the situation.

In his Address at the International Women’s Day Conference in 2013, Lieutenant General David Morrison said,

“I will be ruthless in ridding the army of people who cannot live up to its values.  And I need everyone of you to support me in achieving this. The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept. That goes for all of us, but especially those, who by their rank, have a leadership role.”

Ms Iacono, in her leadership role as Manager, Discipline & Suitability, has walked past the most disgraceful conduct and is continuing down her poorly chosen path. She must go.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

2 Comments

  1. When I asked Ms Iacono if she truly believed that I had been treated fairly by the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner she hesitated, apparently trying to think of a safe response. The best she could come up with was a rather coy, “Well, I would rather look to the future than to go back to the past.” This response said much more than Ms Iacono intended.

  2. Dear Mr Mericka,
    I fully agree with you as I have been targeted by the former LIV as delegate of the LSB and VLSBC.
    I submit that current personnel of the VLSB have failed to read the Legal Profession Act 2004 (Vic) as that legislation has been superseded by the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (the “Uniform Law”). Ms Iacono admitted in correspondence to me that in 2008 Judge I J K Ross (VCAT Vice President) made final orders following two tribunal hearings in 2008 – Edwards v Law Institute of Victoria (Legal
    Practice) [2008] VCAT 1277 and Edwards v Law Institute of Victoria (Legal Practice) [2008] VCAT 2034, The Tribunal made final orders, indicated in the Penalty decision of 29 September 2008, that provided to me a pathway by which I could return to legal practice after 30 June 2010. The current administrators of the legal profession, when considering a review of a decision of the Board that was determined under the 2004 Act where “the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the original decision maker and is required to decide whether the decision which was made was the correct or preferable one.” [It is understood that under the Uniform Law there is no review provision that provides wide jurisdiction to the Tribunal]. Note that in the Danielah Iacono correspondence of 30 November 2022, at the top of page 2, it is stated, “Pursuant to Part 3.3. of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (being the present regulatory regime in place for the legal profession) the Board must refuse the grant of a practising certificate to any applicant it does not view as fit and proper. A similar obligation was imposed upon the Board in the previous regulatory regime, by way of Part 2.4 of the Legal Profession Act (Vic) 2004. In both cases the Board, and not the Tribunal, is the arbiter of an applicant’s fitness to practice, and can take account of a wide variety of factors, …” Clearly the current administrators have not considered the provisions of section 2.4.37 of the 2004 Act – – Review of decisions about local practising certificates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please confirm that you are a human and not a spam bot *