Mr Revell had already been referred to a standards committee for potential trust account breaches and misappropriation of trust funds. That committee referred the matter to the Disciplinary Tribunal (which ultimately led to Mr Revell being struck off). During those processes, Mr Revell signed an undertaking relating to how he would operate his trust account, including that he would “notify NZLS if the balance of the trust account exceeds $1,000 at any time while the undertaking was in effect”.

The stated purpose of Mr Revell’s undertaking was to:

…obtain additional assurance that, during the period until any disciplinary charges against the practitioner have been determined by the Tribunal, the practitioner will operate his trust account in compliance with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 and without placing any client funds in jeopardy.

During subsequent reviews of the trust account by the Inspectorate of the Law Society, the Inspectorate found that the balance had exceeded $1,000 on 159 separate occasions. Mr Revell did not report any of these instances to the Law Society. When questioned about this in the Tribunal proceedings, Mr Revell stated that he had notified the Law Society “maybe three times”.

Because of the Inspectorate’s report, the Committee opened an own motion inquiry into Mr Revell’s conduct in relation to his undertaking. It made multiple attempts to contact Mr Revell and seek his response, and to provide him with a notice of the hearing. Mr Revell did not respond. The Committee conducted a hearing on the papers, considering the information provided by the Inspectorate.

The Committee accepted the Inspectorate’s clear financial evidence showing the large number of instances in which Mr Revell breached his undertaking. The Committee noted that if Mr Revell had been unsure of the requirements of his undertaking, he should have clarified this with the Inspectorate or sought to have the wording amended. He did not do so.

The Committee concluded that, in failing to honour his undertaking to report to the Law Society, Mr Revell breached rr 10, 10.5, 10.5.1, 10.5.2 and 10.9 of the Rules. These rules relate to the obligation to promote and maintain professional standards, undertakings and misleading or deceptive conduct. The Committee determined that, by breaching these rules, Mr Revell engaged in unsatisfactory conduct pursuant to s 12(c) of the Act.

The Committee said that a significant penalty was necessary to mark its serious concern with Mr Revell’s conduct, which it noted occurred repeatedly over a long period of time. It characterised the conduct as an ongoing breach of an undertaking Mr Revell had given to his professional body. It said that was “entirely unacceptable”, referring to the underlying purpose of the undertaking as ensuring the proper management of client funds. The Committee also considered that Mr Revell’s lack of engagement with its inquiry was an aggravating factor. On those bases, the Committee fined Mr Revell $15,000 (the maximum fine allowed under the relevant regulations) and ordered him to pay costs of $1,500.

The Committee subsequently directed publication of a summary of its determination in the matter, including the identity of Mr Revell. That direction was made with the prior approval of the Law Society’s Board. The Committee considered such publication was necessary and desirable in the public interest. Its primary reason was to ensure public confidence in the legal profession, showing how seriously the profession views such breaches of professional obligations.