The tribunal determined that the action didn’t hurt the client, but it lacked the honesty expected of a lawyer
The Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal has taken a rehabilitative approach in dealing with the matter of an ex-lawyer who had modified a chain of emails.
The tribunal determined that the conduct of the former lawyer, dubbed Mr G, did not hurt the client; however, such conduct “fell well short of the honesty and candour expected of a person privileged to be an enrolled, practising lawyer”, according to a statement published on the NZ Law Society website.
The tribunal took into account the fact that Mr G was new to the profession and was subject to little supervision. Thus, it opted to censure the ex-lawyer, in addition to ordering that he be supervised on certain terms for a 12-month period and required to attend professional development.
Mr G started his first legal job in April 2022 at a firm where the directors were in the office only two days a week, though they could be reached by phone and other electronic means. Mr G was initially guided by a senior solicitor, but the senior solicitor left the firm a month later. Consequently, Mr. G inherited 50 of the solicitor’s active files, adding to his existing workload.
As a supervisory measure, Mr G was required to copy his supervising director, Mr M, on all significant emails. Mr G had already been reprimanded in the past for not adhering to this policy.
In July 2022, Mr G did not copy his supervisor on relevant emails after completing a transaction for a client. He then made what was described as "the very poor decision to alter emails to disguise this oversight" out of fear that he would be fired. The alterations included changes to suggest that the supervising director had been looped in, adjustments to the transaction completion timeline, and improvements in the language used.
On noticing the discrepancies, the client communicated with Mr M to ensure that the transaction had not been compromised. Upon being confronted with his conduct, Mr G acknowledged his mistake and resigned. Since then, he has not sought to practise law.
Since a client was on the receiving end of the emails, the tribunal viewed the potential disrepute to the profession as “an aggravating factor”. Nonetheless, in mitigation the tribunal recognised Mr G’s inexperience as a newly qualified lawyer, the lack of supervision provided to him, and the prior reprimands that made him hesitant to go to his supervisor in relation to the issue. Moreover, the action did not involve deceit or risk to the client, and Mr G promptly admitted to the mistake.
Thus, given that Mr G had expressed insight and remorse, fully accepted his wrongdoing, cooperated with the Standards Committee's investigation, and did not try to downplay his action, the tribunal decided that Mr G was “worthy of rehabilitation and further support to return to his career”. It determined that as long as he was provided with further education and mentorship from a senior practitioner, Mr G was not a risk to the public.
The tribunal ruled that the disciplinary process, the misconduct finding, the withdrawal from the legal profession since the offence, and the additional orders would be sufficient deterrents to further offences. Permanent name suppression was granted for Mr G, his former employer, and the firm.
The tribunal also required Mr G to share his disciplinary history to prospective employers for two years. It highlighted the case as an example of why inexperienced lawyers must be given access to significant support, even though junior lawyers are also bound to honour their professional responsibilities.
“It is the duty of every principal in a firm which employs new graduates, to provide meaningful support and guidance in their early years. This should include accessibility, in a real way, to the senior, whenever the junior lawyer seeks guidance”, the tribunal said. “The junior lawyer must also be diligent in file management, following client instructions, and open to receiving some criticism and help. She or he must also be conversant and compliant with the rules governing conduct”.
