Mr A was the subject of a previous finding of unsatisfactory conduct for failure to competently supervise Ms Z. The penalty included a fine and costs of $4000, which Mr A subsequently paid. Shortly afterwards, he told Ms Z of the Standards Committee decision and informed her that he had paid the associated $4,000 penalty. He explained that Ms Z then “volunteered” to give him $4,000 as “she felt it was her responsibility.”

A payment was made by Ms Z to the bank account of Mr A’s wife. Mr A confirmed that he paid the fine before he was given any money by Ms Z. He argued that he did not “require” or “coerce” her into making the payment.

The Committee was satisfied that Mr A did not directly ask Ms Z to pay the fine and costs that had been imposed on him. However, it noted that Ms Z did pay Mr A the sum of $4000 after she was informed of the decision and after she was given the bank details of Mr A’s wife. Mr A then proceeded to accept and keep the payment.  

In considering Mr A’s submissions, the Committee was left with the overwhelming impression that he had not taken responsibility for his own actions. He discussed how Ms Z had allegedly caused his firm to lose money in various client matters, which was seen as an attempt to justify why it was correct and proper for him to retain the sum paid. He made reference to an unrelated lawsuit and other Standards Committee decisions concerning Ms Z, seemingly with the view to excuse his own unsatisfactory conduct. The Committee concluded that Mr A continued to seek to blame Ms Z for his own shortcomings.

The Committee was disappointed that Mr A did not acknowledge the continuing power imbalance between himself and Ms Z. He had close connections to the legal community and the ability to influence Ms Z’s reputation. Additionally, Mr A did not appreciate how the “appearance of impropriety” in this situation would adversely impact the reputation of the legal profession.

The Committee noted that the acceptance of Ms Z’s money reflected poorly on Mr A and was a failure to take responsibility for his own actions. It stated that he alone should have borne the consequences of his own unsatisfactory conduct. Further, it was irrelevant that Ms Z had voluntarily offered to make the payment. The act of accepting and keeping the money made Mr A’s conduct fall below the standards the profession expects and contravened a fundamental obligation of lawyers to preserve the integrity and reputation of the profession as noted in the preface of the RCCC.

In accordance with section 152(2)(b)(i) and section 12(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the Committee made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct. In determining the penalty, the Committee accepted that this was a one-off occurrence. On the other hand, the Committee acknowledged that Mr A was an experienced practitioner and had not taken any action to rectify the matter. Mr A was ordered to pay Ms Z $4,000 as compensation along with $1,000 to the New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa in respect of costs and expenses of the inquiry.