The first charge of misconduct arose in circumstances where Ms Cottrell was engaged by a client to obtain a skilled migrant visa. The client had contemporaneously signed an employment agreement with a recruitment agency that was owned by Ms Cottrell. In her capacity as a recruiting agent, Ms Cottrell agreed to find work in the client's field of expertise (civil engineering) that would support his visa application. The client, however, was instructed to undertake building renovation and construction work for companies owned either by Ms Cottrell or by her associates. The Tribunal considered Ms Cottrell had profited from her client’s vulnerable position by employing him at a minimal rate for work that did not reflect his skills and that her position of conflict in that regard was a seriously aggravating feature. The client was also encouraged to accept his wages in cash to avoid Inland Revenue requirements. In respect of the visa application, Ms Cottrell made false declarations about the nature of her client’s employment and then failed to advise him for over a year that his application had been declined and that he was liable for deportation.

The second charge of misconduct concerned Ms Cottrell’s failure to competently advance a client’s application with INZ. Ms Cottrell was instructed to obtain a joint residency visa for a client and her husband after their initial application was unsuccessful because it omitted relevant background information, resulting in her client’s husband being deported. In June 2017, Ms Cottrell had her client sign an incomplete application form, which she would later complete and file. The client understood that the June 2017 application would include relevant information that had led to the application being originally declined, but was not given the opportunity to review it before filing. Ms Cottrell failed to include the relevant information, and this led to the application being declined a second time. Ms Cottrell was aware that it had been declined on 30 November 2017 but did not tell her client. Ms Cottrell did not communicate further with her client until October 2019, at which time she advised that they needed to submit another application but did not explain why.

With regard to the criminal convictions, Ms Cottrell was convicted of providing false or misleading information to INZ and a further two charges of aiding and abetting a person to breach their visa conditions. She was sentenced to four months community detention and reparation. The Standards Committee alleged that these were convictions that reflected on her fitness to practice and tended to bring the profession into disrepute.

The Tribunal found all charges proven. In determining liability, the Tribunal considered Ms Cottrell’s conduct fell at the very serious end of the continuum of misconduct given the core elements of dishonesty and lack of integrity. It accepted the Standards Committee's submission that "such conduct strikes at the heart of the practitioner’s honesty and integrity [and] … significantly undermines the profession’s reputation for truthfulness, candour and accountability."

The Tribunal then turned to consider penalty. The Tribunal considered that Ms Cottrell’s two prior findings of unsatisfactory conduct fell within the same general pattern of failure and disregard of vulnerable clients’ interests. The Tribunal considered “suspension might have been an option had good evidence of rehabilitation prospects and insight been available.” However, Ms Cottrell did not participate in the disciplinary process at any stage, nor did she appear at the hearing to provide the Tribunal with any further context that might have been taken into consideration as a mitigating factor. The Tribunal determined “that no penalty short of strike off will suffice to ensure protection of the public and maintenance of the reputation of the profession for upholding high professional standards.” Ms Cottrell was struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors from 6 August 2024. She was also ordered to pay costs.