Mahvash Ikram
A disciplinary tribunal has slated the “appalling” conduct of a senior lawyer whose demanding management style sparked mass resignations of junior staff at the firm where she worked.
The Lawyer & Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found the lawyer “Ms A”, who has name suppression, guilty on two changes of misconduct and one of unsatisfactory conduct. She pleaded guilty to a third misconduct charge.
Another lawyer “Mr B”, who supposedly acted as a director at the firm but actually left its running to Ms A, was found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct.
In a written decision, the tribunal said that Ms A’s firm was liquidated in 2014 and the NZ Law Society declined to issue her with a certificate to practise on her own because it was concerned about the financial mismanagement and administrative failures.
Instead, it allowed her to practise, but only as an employee, until her certificate was fully restored in 2022.
Between 2014 and 2022, Ms A hired succession of other lawyers to hold the title of director the firm where she worked, with her own role described as “senior legal counsel”.
But the tribunal said that in reality she ran the firm with minimum oversight from the various directors, acting as holding herself out the face the practice, making hiring decisions, deciding which work the firm took, supervising legal work, and generally setting the tone for workplace culture and disciplinary matters.
It said this breached an implied undertaking she had given to the Law Society, effectively “thumbing her nose” at the restrictions put on her in a way that amounted to misconduct.
‘Free to resign’
The tribunal’s strongest criticism centred on Ms A’s treatment of her staff.
Juniors were expected to record seven and a half hours a day, be included on a weekend roster and be available during evenings. The pressure to bill at that level was “simply unrealistic and very daunting”, the tribunal found.
Staff were told they did not need sick days because the job was not physical. Ms A told one employee who had asked to work from home while unwell that handwashing was enough to deter infection and she could take unpaid leave. In another case, Mr D emailed an employee querying whether her illness was genuine, putting “illness” in quotation marks.
In March 2020, one employee objected to the roster, pointing out the hours would leave staff paid less than the minimum wage. Ms A took offence and said those who did not wish to work the overtime were free to resign.
All five juniors resigned that day, 25 March 2020. Ms A called the resignation letter “collective nonsense”.
Ms A’s lawyer Karen Feint KC warned the tribunal to treat the witnesses with caution, referring to a risk of “groupthink” while making clear she alleged no collusion. The tribunal said the juniors’ concerns arose independently and they had been careful, reliable witnesses.
Making a finding of misconduct, the tribunal aid that while Ms A was a committed, hardworking practitioner, “her treatment of her junior staff at that time, was at times appalling”.
‘High-risk approach’
The tribunal criticised the failure of Ms A and Mr B to properly supervise and manage their staff.
Ms A’s evidence was that she was in the office at least half the time. Immigration records put her outside New Zealand for 67% of 2017 and 2018, 51% of 2019 and 59% of 2020, before absences within the country for hearings and client meetings.
Almost all the firm’s staff were recent graduates. Twelve months’ post-qualification experience was regarded as almost “intermediate”. Turnover was “extraordinarily high” – staff who stayed beyond a year were in the minority.
Ms A supervised juniors via voice messages, Skype and handwritten corrections, often without explanation. One employee told the tribunal the audio notes left him no way to ask questions, and he did not realise how little guidance he had had until he moved firms.
Every document needed Ms A’s approval before filing, creating a bottleneck and deadlines were frequently missed.
“The breaches were not short-lived, or because of a temporary crisis,” the tribunal said. “Rather, they were sustained, with a systematic high-risk approach to practice management – that is, heavy reliance on juniors under significant work pressure with limited supervision and leadership.”
‘Too busy’ for clients
The tribunal also examined the way Ms A handled her clients, saying she “palmed off” a woman who was involved in a Family Court matter onto junior lawyers.
“It is egregious conduct for a senior lawyer with such a high turnover of juniors to refuse to engage with clients directly, because she was ‘too busy’,” it said, making a finding of unsatisfactory conduct. “She should have known that the lack of personal relationship and continuity was difficult for her clients and stepped up herself.”
Another client, Mr O, wanted to appeal a decision of the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority in the High Court. A deadline for affidavits was missed and later, when it turned out that the affidavits could not be obtained, a judge awarded costs of $8,200 against her client.
The costs were not paid, despite repeated reminders to Ms A from her juniors. She also missed a case-management conference, claiming in court the next day that she had the wrong date in her calendar. The presiding judge then stuck out the appeal, confirmed the costs award, and noted: “It may well be that the appellants have some remedy against counsel for the predicament they find themselves in.”
However, Ms A never informed the client that he could have a case against or told him to obtain legal advice. She continued to act for him in other matters while the costs award remained unpaid, the interest accrued and the question of a claim against her went unresolved.
Ms A admitted to misconduct of the matter, which the tribunal found was a reckless breach of Conduct and Client Care rules.
A penalty hearing is scheduled for September 16.
0 Comments