abou fetish

He probably enjoys the humiliation, we can't win.

A lawyer in Australia who exhibited an uncontrollable urge to tell other lawyers about his foot fetish has been suspended from working in the profession for nine months.

John Abou Haidar went overboard with his kink in September 2019 when he emailed another lawyer, ‘Ms C’, at her business address, and a barrister, ‘Mr A’, at his chambers, asking if they knew another lawyer, ‘Ms B’, and if they could help him obtain work with her.

Unfortunately he made several other comments which hindered his chances of a positive referral.

Haidar, who was 28 at the time, asked, "Have you ever had an orgasm – from a male – licking the bottom of your feet (softly to make you laugh, firmly to make you feel empowered) – sucking your toes – licking the gap in between your toes – try find a guy that has given more girls organisms [sic] by being under their feet then [sic] me. ☺ Bit of a weird flex/brag". 

Targeting Ms C, with whom he had clerked for Mr A a few years earlier, Haidar wrote, "I remember all the shoes I saw [Ms C] wear in my time at [chambers]. Bit weird? ☺ I wank about [Ms C]'s feet way more than is healthy. The way you would dangle your heels, change your shoes, take your shoes of [sic]... Oh my days". 

He attached various screenshots including one of a news article about Ms B pleading guilty to drug and drink-driving charges, and a picture of a Hindu deity which the tribunal said “could be taken as a depiction of the Lawyer's sexual fetishes”.

When Ms B was passed a copy of the email, she contacted Haidar and told him it was inappropriate and “not conducive to the advancement of his legal career”.

In response he sent her his CV, then emailed Ms B and Mr A to rant about the grandmother of Ms B's client. 

"I kissed her when she came over, out of respect", he wrote, claiming that "when she dropped me home, she wanted another kiss and something more”, and stated, "I am not a male prostitute, I will not sell my body to a woman in her 60s that is married with children 10 years older than me".

His outburst resulted in a letter from the Western Australia Legal Services and Complaints Committee, which invited him to respond.

Haidar obliged, replying, "Firstly, I have a foot fetish and a very submissive sexual nature. I do not hide from this, nor do I hide from the fact that I like to masturbate over pretty feet and shoes, in the privacy of my bedroom".

"I promise that I masturbate over other girls [sic] feet and shoes, not just [Ms C's] … She is a very competent and articulate lawyer, who happens to have a pretty face and cute feet", he told the committee.

"I again unreservedly apologise if I caused any 'humiliation' or 'discomfort' to [Ms B], [Ms C] or my father figure [Mr A]", he said.

Vowing to turn over a new leaf, Haidar wrote, "I hope to not hear back about my email and rather focus my energy on sending out my cv and covering letter to prospective employers. I have learnt the importance of keeping my inner monologue private, and not sharing my fantasies with other people”.

The next afternoon he emailed four more lawyers stating, "It is only fair since [Mr A] and the legal board have reprimanded me for wanking in my room about female lawyers feet and shoes, that I make full disclosure of all my wanking memories”. 

Addressing ‘Ms E’, he wrote: “I wanked over you many times! I imagined you dominating me and using my mouth as an ash tray”.

“I liked to perve at your heels and fantasised many times that you would trample me under them. Once I saw you in open style shoes and I wanked for a good week over that memory”, said the Perth-based lawyer.

Hadair signed off, “Yours truly, WA's Biggest Wanker submissive cuckold slut, John masturbator haidar" 

Half an hour later the porn-sick lawyer sent a follow-up email stating, "Do not share it with anyone please … Kind regards, Continually heart broken looser [sic]”.

Haidar told the Western Australia State Administration Tribunal that he had been depressed and on alcohol and cannabis at the relevant time.

He also initially claimed that he "was in effect seeking assistance” from Ms B, Ms C and Ms E, with whom “I was in a close relationship”.

However, after Ms B told the committee she had never met Haidar, and Ms C said she had only worked with him briefly when they were both clerks for Mr A, and Ms E said she had limited professional dealings with him, Haidar accepted that “a relationship of friendship did not objectively exist”.

His defence gave examples of tribunals dealing leniently with other raving sex pest lawyers in Australia, including a 2014 case in which one “made 78 uninvited sexual advances towards a legal trainee”, and a 1998 case in which another locked clients in his office and masturbated in front of them. 

The tribunal ruled that Haidar’s conduct “can only be described as both bizarre and disgusting” and “would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful and dishonourable”.

But it agreed that he deserved credit for accepting at an early stage of the proceedings that he had engaged in professional misconduct, and for exhibiting remorse.

Citing a psychiatric report which said his judgment was notably impaired as a result of his depressed mood and his use of illicit substances, it also took into account the medical opinion that, now he was sober, a repetition of his conduct was “highly unlikely”, and that the historic cases demonstrated a return to the profession was possible if "the psychiatric condition has been, or is being, addressed in a way that makes repetition of the conduct unlikely”.

Finding Haider guilty of professional misconduct, it ordered the grant of his practising certificate to be withheld for nine months, and ruled that he must pay costs of $5,000.

LU iconLet top firms and companies ping your app when they like you for a role. Whether or not you're actively looking to move, keep one ear open by downloading LawyerUp on the App Store or Google Play.


Tip Off ROF


Grobb 05 May 23 09:38

I’m almost looking forward to seeing how the usual suspects try to rationalise this one as a poor, innocent man being brought down by scheming women.

Anonymous 05 May 23 10:30

"She is a very competent and articulate lawyer, who happens to have a pretty face and cute feet"

That's the Chambers & Partners testimonial sorted then.

If that doesn't get you into the Rising Stars section then who knows what will?

Question Man 05 May 23 10:31

@Grobb - Which of the usual suspects is it that you have in mind? What is it that you suspect them of?

Question Man 05 May 23 11:20

Grobb 05 May 23 09:38: I'm not going to peddle my usual, bad faith nonsense, because I have seen a mental health professional and now know how to behave.

Question Man 05 May 23 11:59

@Question Man 11:20 - Shut up Me! 

I need far more sessions before my profound unwellness is even close to cured.

Anonymous 05 May 23 13:23

@Grobb - err, Mr A sounds like a man! Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a bit of misandry.

Lord Lester 05 May 23 14:23

Anonymous 05 May 23 13:18: not sound as in hear, sound as in how he comes across as a person! Faceplant doh!

Grobb 05 May 23 16:24

Anon @1323

You seem to be confused. Mr A wasn’t the focus of the foot stuff. Ms B, C and E, however, were. Not sure what happened to D.

Honestly, you lot will excuse anything as long as the perpetrator has a Hampton.

No Answer Woman 05 May 23 19:48

@11.20 - what usual bad faith nonsense? What mental health professional? How to behave when and where?

@11.59 - why are you telling yourself to shut up? More sessions of what? What profound unwellness? Cured of what?

@12.14 - who gets what urgent medical help that who needs?

@12.46 - in what way?

@13.48 - what's just 'Question Man'?

Anonymous 05 May 23 21:59

@[email protected] - yes, very confused indeed by your talk about scheming women when Mr A is a man! Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a dose of misandry.

What 'lot' are excusing what 'burpetrators'  because said 'burpetrators' have 'Hamptons'?


anon 07 May 23 09:34

Anonymous 06 May 23 08:20: not sound as in hear, sound as in how he comes across as a person! Faceplant doh!

Question SimpWM 08 May 23 04:57

Is giving your daughter a training contract illegal? Why do I still cry about it? Is my wife upset? Is my daughter upset? Are the police now involved? Did my daughter suffer mentally? Will question man get a job offer? 

AsiaMunirShabanaMuneer 08 May 23 05:49

First of all, my name rhymes, so nice I had to be named, similar, twice... Working in law, and for great firms I understand the need to be a rounded person. Working for such spectacular firm, I; sing, dance, play sport, dance, create, intelligent beyond reasonable expectations, human, personable, get on with EVERYONE, kind, generous (not), well mannered, can spell great, human, did I say personable not like proper lawyers that aren't thick and insecure?, special, creative, artistic, fantastic, one of a kind, genius, most of all I am WHITE. footjobs are decent albeit dry. I give great footjobs too by the way. I do it all. My mum even said I'm special as I was the only person who wasn't a thick idiot, so could go to University. teehee. I am the question man. I am in therapy. Thanks for hacking my phone... ROF do you want a proper story? How's your daughter? 

upsetlawyerturnedphonehacker 08 May 23 06:30

I gave my daughter a training contract, someone reported it. another person laughed at it. I will never forgive them for laughing. it hurt too much. best - upset lawyer. yes, I'm still upset. no, I'm not over it. even though I hacked them it still hurts too much. the upset phone hacker continues. 

Grobb 09 May 23 09:49

[email protected] on 5 May

As a man, I’m not sure I’d make a terribly convincing misandrist.

You, conversely, are coming across as a boy in quest of eternal victimhood.

Still, I can at least take some satisfaction that you’ve been reduced to blathering about burps at 10pm on a Friday night.

anon 09 May 23 10:54

anon 07 May 23 09:34: exactly! Not sound as in hear, sound as in how he comes across as a person! Faceplant doh @ Anonymous 05 May 23 13:18, Anonymous 06 May 23 08:20, Anonymous 07 May 23 15:35.

Lord Lester 09 May 23 11:39

Question Man 08 May 23 05:11: by happy coincidence, I also am in Leeds then. From your comments in RoF, I think we both have the same attitude to women (ghastly bunch, but why should consent matter?), so why don't we try to meet?

Anonymous 09 May 23 13:12

@Concerning - yes what?

@[email protected] - why are you chasing everyone?

@[email protected] - what coincidence? why is it happy? In Leeds when? What comments on RoF? What attitude to women? Why are you a ghastly bunch? Why should consent to what matter? Why shouldn't you and who try to meet what?

anon 09 May 23 13:32

anon 09 May 23 10:54: exactly! Not sound as in hear, sound as in how he comes across as a person! Faceplant doh @ Anonymous 05 May 23 13:18, Anonymous 06 May 23 08:20, Anonymous 07 May 23 15:35, Anonymous 09 May 23 13:04.

Anonymous 09 May 23 17:49

What in the blazes happened to this comment thread?

It starts off a bit weird but then by the end it feels like all semblance of sanity has completely fallen away, as if people are replying by just randomly slapping their faces on their keyboards as they wail at the moon.

I need therapy just to get over reading it.

Anonymous 09 May 23 18:39

@17.49 - agreed, some people are commenting that they hear the article speaking to them!

Anon 09 May 23 19:02

Anonymous 09 May 23 17:49: absolutely. Imagine what an idiot you’d have to be not to know that “sounds like” means “appears to be” and doesn’t mean speaking…..

Anonymous 09 May 23 19:12

@gob@[email protected] - you were called out for misandry not gender. Comments about 'boys playing victim' are further examples.

And the one blathering burps about burpetrators when they should be at work is you!

Anonymous 09 May 23 20:38

@19.02 - almost as much of an idiot as you'd have to be to think you can hear the words in the article!

Anon 09 May 23 21:07

Anon 09 May 23 19:02 - yes, an idiot, or someone who is arguing in bad faith. “Sounds like” means “seems to be”, as everyone knows.

Anon 09 May 23 21:07 09 May 23 21:41

Anon 09 May 23 19:02 - although saying that, anyone who thinks they can hear words in an article is clearly an idiot. Bad faith to suggest otherwise.

Human 11 May 23 15:26

It reads like James Joyce. I thought it was of some artistic merit. I also thought that the punishment was too lenient. 

Related News