Tribunal also finds lawyer failed to supervise junior staff and breached duties to the courts
A New Zealand lawyer has been suspended from practice for four months and ordered to pay substantial costs after a disciplinary tribunal found she ran her firm while forbidden from practising on her own account and failed to properly supervise and treat junior staff.
The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal also censured a senior lawyer who had acted as a director of the firm, finding he "did not properly understand [his] obligations."
The lawyers, identified only as Ms A and Mr B, are covered by non-publication orders. The Tribunal declined Ms A's application to suppress her name, but an interim order remains in place while she pursues an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
'Window dressing'
In its liability decision, the Tribunal found Ms A guilty of three counts of misconduct and one of unsatisfactory conduct. The charges related to practising on her own account when forbidden to do so, failing to supervise junior staff, her treatment of staff, and breaching duties to the court and a client. Ms A admitted the last charge.
At the penalty hearing, the Standards Committee argued the penalty "must start at the high end of available sanctions." Ms A's counsel submitted this approach was punitive and wrong, noting the Tribunal had made no findings of dishonesty.
The Tribunal disagreed, stating it did "not consider that a charge must involve dishonesty to be considered at the serious end of the spectrum."
It added that the way Ms A ran her firm and presented herself as being in charge was "certainly less than scrupulously honest," having previously described the conduct as "window dressing" and "thumbing her nose" at her professional body.
Pattern of delay
The Tribunal also weighed Ms A's conduct during the proceedings, which were split and adjourned several times to accommodate two changes of counsel.
"Failure to manage deadlines has been a recurring theme both within the charges and the management of these proceedings generally," it said.
It noted that the firm's caseload had grown from 100 to 300 files since the conduct, which her counsel described as "historical."
"We question whether the growth in the practice reflects proper insight by Ms A into her management failures in the past," the Tribunal said.
However, it credited Ms A's prompt admission of one charge and evidence from staff and clients that her management of the firm had since improved.
Suspension and costs
The Tribunal said a suspension of six to eight months would have been available, but reduced it to four months to account for the impact on the firm's staff and clients.
"Any lesser penalty would not sufficiently denounce the total conduct under consideration," it said.
The suspension begins on 12 November 2026. The Tribunal refused Ms A's request to defer it until the end of January 2027, warning that "public perception of such an indulgently long period might be that the conduct was not being taken sufficiently seriously."
It declined the Standards Committee's request to bar Ms A from practising on her own account, instead ordering 12 months of supervision by a senior practitioner after her return.
Ms A was ordered to pay 80% of the Standards Committee's costs, which the committee put at $185,000, and to reimburse the New Zealand Law Society $94,531.50, or 90% of the Tribunal's costs.
In its censure, the Tribunal told Ms A she showed "a lack of respect for your colleagues bordering on arrogance," adding: "Failed deadlines are insulting to the courts and tribunals to whom you owe a primary duty."
Director censured
Mr B, who has 45 years of practice and a clean disciplinary record, was found to have taken on the directorship to help Ms A on what he saw as a short-term basis.
The Tribunal said he should have been "much more sceptical and challenging of the financial information" provided to him, and that he "was not available as a resource for the young lawyers who needed much more guidance."
No costs order was made against him. The Tribunal suggested the Law Society consider publishing guidelines for lawyers who step in as directors where a practitioner has been temporarily disqualified from that role.
