Mahvash Ikram
An Auckland immigration lawyer has been found guilty of misconduct and negligence after dumping a cash-strapped client just days before a Family Court hearing and for representing the client in an area of the law where he had no expertise and competence.
Tae Wok Kwon has also lost name suppression.
In its decision, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal concluded that this was not a borderline case. Kwon’s failure towards his client and his lack of understanding of the relevant law were so gross that they reflected on his fitness to practise and risked bringing the profession into disrepute, the tribunal said.
A penalty hearing is expected in late October.
The misconduct charges, brought by the New Zealand Law Society’s Legal Standards Committee, related to an alleged breach of obligations and duty to the court and to his client by failing to attend a directions conference in November 2023 relating to a family violence matter and a defended hearing in June 2024 relating to the Care of Children Act 2004.
The negligence charge arose from a memorandum Kwon submitted to the court just days before the November hearing where he admitted he did not “have good knowledge of family law practices, especially practical matters such as terms of custody etc”.
The tribunal said there was little dispute about the facts.
Kwon’s client was the defendant in a Family Court case, which involved several Roundtable Meetings (RTMs) and Pre-trial Conferences (PTCs). While Kwon attended one RTM in August 2023, he failed to attend a second meeting in November 2023, saying he had been instructed by his client not to go.
He also failed to attend a subsequent directions conference on 28 November 2023. In the minutes of the conference, Family Court Judge Gabrielle Wagner said Kwon’s absence had hampered the progress of the case.
“Mr Kwon is counsel on the record. He has an obligation to attend unless his attendance is excused. It is not for him to decide if and when he will appear. He is obliged to appear unless his appearance is formally excused,” the judge said. “I also say it is unfortunate that he has not been available for the last two RTMs, and certainly in terms of the information I have, matters have not progressed perhaps as much as they should have because of his absence.”
Kwon’s was also absent from a directions conference in March 2024, when a defended hearing was set for June 2024. At the end of May, he went to Korea on business and told his client he expected to return before the hearing. However, on 16 June he advised he would not be returning to New Zealand in time for the hearing and that the client should attend unrepresented or seek a six-month adjournment.
The client rejected both options and contacted the other party’s lawyer, seeking assistance and explaining he had not been able to eat since he received the email from his lawyer. The client also said Kwon had asked the defendant to fire him because he could not afford to return to New Zealand just for the hearing.
On 15 June, opposing counsel contacted Kwon and reminded him of his obligations to his client and the court. But Kwon said he was planning to file a memorandum to inform the court of his resignation, which he submitted on 16 June – five days before the scheduled hearing.
In the memo he admitted he knew little about family law. But on 19 June the judge told Kwon he was expected at the hearing because it was essential for the defendant to be represented. When he failed to turn up, the judge appointed another lawyer.
0 Comments