The lawyer, Mr A, was representing a Legal Aid client (client) in a civil litigation matter. The Committee acknowledged that this area of legal practice has faced “continual systemic and resourcing challenges that are recognised across the profession.” There were significant delays in Mr A’s management of the client’s file; at one stage, although disputed by Mr A, it appeared that no progress was made for a period of five months. In some instances Mr A was prompt in responding to correspondence from the client. At other times he took weeks to reply. Mr A eventually identified another lawyer to act for the client, but the client was no longer interested by that time.

By way of explanation for his conduct, Mr A stated that he had experienced staffing changes which had resulted in an extremely high workload. He was having to turn away many prospective clients. He outlined that so few lawyers did civil Legal Aid that the Chief Justice had described the system as “broken.”

The Committee was concerned by Mr A’s conduct. Chapter 3 of the Rules requires lawyers to respond to inquiries from their clients in a timely manner and inform their clients of any material and unexpected delays in a matter (which would include changes to staffing). The Committee noted that adherence to strict timeframes was of particular importance in litigation. While the Committee had some sympathy for Mr A’s staffing changes, it was of the view that he should have terminated the retainer as soon as it became apparent that he could not provide a reasonable level of service to the client. It was troubled by the “distinct lack of insight” from Mr A into how his conduct would have impacted the client directly, as well as the trust and confidence in the legal profession by extension.

It was acknowledged by the Committee that Mr A did not intentionally or wilfully neglect his obligations to the client. It appreciated that finding an alternative civil Legal Aid provider in the area would have been challenging. However, the Committee considered that Mr A had the option of referring the client back to the Ministry of Justice directly.

In relation to the challenges faced by Mr A’s practice at the time of managing the client’s file (which included staffing changes, an overloaded client base and the implications of the Covid-19 pandemic), the Committee encouraged Mr A’s continued reflection on his obligations under Rules 3.2 and 3.3. It acknowledged the specific challenges of meeting these obligations while operating within the difficulties of the civil Legal Aid system.

The Committee determined that a penalty at the lower end of the scale was appropriate to mark its concern with Mr A’s conduct. Mr A was censured pursuant to section 156(1)(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.