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.