The Tribunal started by considering the application to rescind the previous finding. In October 2023, the Tribunal found Ms Devoy guilty of misconduct for failing to comply with a Standards Committee order that she return a client file (the 2023 proceedings). Ms Devoy did not participate in the 2023 proceedings and was ultimately suspended for six months (although she had ceased practising by that time). The New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa subsequently became aware of evidence indicating that the file had been delivered and, together with the Standards Committee, applied for the finding and associated orders to be rescinded. The Tribunal noted that the Standards Committee was not at fault in advancing its case in 2023 in the manner it did. The Tribunal accepted that “in the unusual and non-contentious circumstances of this case” it had the jurisdiction to make the orders sought based on its power to determine its own processes. It therefore recalled the finding of misconduct and rescinded the associated penalty orders.

The Tribunal then turned to considering the new charges, which Ms Devoy admitted by email shortly before the hearing. One charge arose from Ms Devoy’s failure to assist the Law Society in exercising its regulatory function in relation to her trust account. The Law Society Inspectorate had been liaising with Ms Devoy to regularise her trust account, a process which Ms Devoy found “overwhelming”, and she failed to provide the information required in a timely manner. A review of her trust account showed that her FIT account had been overdrawn and not rectified immediately, and that her trust account had not been reconciled between October 2022 and April 2023. Ms Devoy had also failed to provide monthly trust account certificates to the Law Society. The Tribunal noted there was no allegation of dishonesty, but “management of client funds requires reconciliation of accounts and meticulous accounting”.  The Tribunal assessed the defaults as “modestly grave”, noting they created more work and expense for the Law Society.

The second charge related to a “longstanding” failure to provide competent service to her client in what appeared to be a simple estate matter. Ms Devoy failed to keep track of the affidavits required for probate, and eventually stopped corresponding with her client and failed to deliver the file once a new lawyer was instructed. The Tribunal noted this was “poor conduct” and that estate matters are often distressing to family members. It considered that Ms Devoy’s conduct had affected the reputation of the profession and caused unnecessary distress for the client.

The Tribunal accepted that these defaults arose within the context of Ms Devoy being unwell and experiencing some personal challenges, but this did not excuse her defaults. It held “our duty to protect the public requires us to take an adamant line.”  The Tribunal’s message to the public and the profession was:

Where unwellness intrudes, the professional obligation to obtain help, transfer work and alert the Law Society to the difficulties must be observed.

In terms of penalty, the Tribunal noted Ms Devoy had four previous findings of unsatisfactory conduct. It noted it would have imposed a period of 12 months’ suspension in respect of the two new charges if the error with the 2023 proceedings had not occurred. Because Ms Devoy had had the burden of “unwarranted six months’ suspension”, the Tribunal decided not to make any order for suspension in respect of the new charges. It did however make an order prohibiting Ms Devoy from practising on her own account until authorised by the Tribunal.