By way of background, Mr Yang was an employed lawyer working for a firm. He acted on a criminal matter for a client over many months, appearing in court on several occasions without the knowledge of his employer. He issued an invoice to the client that had been engineered to give the appearance of a legitimate invoice that came from his employer (and included the firm’s bank account in the payment details). When the client did not pay, Mr Yang brought proceedings in the Disputes Tribunal in his own name, filing documents that were altered to obscure any reference to his employer. Mr Yang filed a second claim against the client in the Disputes Tribunal seeking a further $4,632.25, a portion of which was for fees that had never been invoice and $2000 being for alleged “injury to his feelings” because the first invoice had not been paid. Mr Yang provided his personal bank account for the purposes of the second claim. During the Disputes Tribunal hearing, the Referee queried if Mr Yang’s employer was aware of the proceedings. It was only at this point that Mr Yang advised his supervising partner of the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that Mr Yang’s conduct constituted misconduct. It found that Mr Yang took planned steps to pass off the invoice he had created as evidence of a debt he was entitled to collect for his own benefit. He was a party to materially altering documents to advance that plan. His action in suing a client, without knowledge of his employer, put the reputation of the firm at risk and was a breach of trust. The Tribunal noted that even if Mr Yang had been entitled to personally benefit from the legal work he undertook for the client, to sue a client who has not received an invoice breached his duty of courtesy and trust to the client.

The Tribunal found that Mr Yang’s claim for injury to his feelings amounted to an improper use of the legal system. Like the other conduct, this was “a deliberate departure from accepted standards” and would reasonably be regarded by lawyers of good standing as disgraceful and dishonourable. The Tribunal noted “any of these pieces of conduct and, unquestionably, their totality, bring into question Mr Yang’s fitness to be enrolled as a lawyer and that lawyers of good standing would reasonably regard Mr Yang’s conduct as disgraceful and dishonourable.”

In assessing penalty, the Tribunal regarded Mr Yang’s misconduct significant as “it demonstrates a devious, extended course of action.” The Tribunal found that Mr Yang was deliberately dishonest by failing to enter his client’s information into his employer’s system, something he knew he was supposed to do. The Tribunal noted that no one suffered financial loss, and that Mr Yang was still relatively young and inexperienced at the relevant time. It noted that his judgement seemed to be wanting, and considered that it needed to exercise caution in letting him practise without proper oversight.

The Tribunal added “Mr Yang should be required to reflect on the fundamental gravity of his misconduct, and that he should re-enter upon professional life with wrap around support that will give us sufficient confidence, for some time, that his practice will be safe for the public.” The Tribunal suspended Mr Yang from practice for 12 months from 12 August, 2024 and ordered to pay costs. The Tribunal also prohibited Mr Yang from practising on his own account, whether in partnership or otherwise, until authorised by the Tribunal to do so.