Neil Sands
A lawyer who took hundreds of thousands of dollars from his parents’ trust and bank accounts has been found unfit to practice, with a disciplinary tribunal describing his explanations for multiple ethical failures were “almost [at] the point of self-delusion”.
The Lawyers & Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal also criticised the man, referred to as Mr G, for obfuscation, “appallingly negligent record keeping”, and personal attacks on the complainant, his sister, who he repeatedly characterised as vindictive.
“Is this a person who can be described as ‘honest, trustworthy, and a person of integrity’? Is he a person who can be ‘trusted to the ends of the Earth?’ and a ‘person of unquestionable integrity, probity and trustworthiness’,” the tribunal said in a written decision examining Mr G’s fitness to practice.
“We consider that the answer to these questions must be a definite ‘No’.”
Mr G was not named in the decision, although it makes no reference to suppression orders. He was admitted as a lawyer in May 1997 and the case was brought by Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2.
Mr G had power of attorney over his elderly parents’ bank accounts, he was a co-trustee with his sister of the family trust, and after his mother, who had dementia, died in July 2018, he was executor of her will. His father died in May 2017 and Mr G told the tribunal he was primary carer for both parents in their final years.
‘An extraordinary amount’
The tribunal’s decision detailed multiple payments Mr G made to himself, including more than $330,000 in loans from the family trust in October and November 2018, without the knowledge of his sister, the co-trustee.
There were also five withdrawals totalling around $118,000 from his parents’ bank accounts between May 2017 and August 2018.
The tribunal said Mr G claimed $152,500 for reimbursement of expenses he argued were incurred for his parents, although he could provide invoices for only $12,800 of the amount.
It said that, according to Mr G’s evidence, between May 2017 to November 2018: “[He] spent $269,714 on two elderly and seriously infirm parents who were largely housebound, one of whom died in May 2017.
“Even accepting that some reimbursements might have been carried forward from earlier years, this seems an extraordinary amount, particularly in the absence of supporting documentation.”
The tribunal quoted from an affidavit Mr G made in 2022 detailing his emotional state after the death of his parents, as well as additional stress he faced from a marriage breakdown, disputes with family members, and criminal proceedings. No further details of the criminal proceedings were given.
“I was in a period of deep grief, depression and utter loss – on the back of years of caring for my parents. I felt like I was in a warzone and operating on remote – day by day putting out fires (mostly emotional) as best I could,” he said.
Mr G also gave oral evidence to the tribunal saying he was under “severe personal financial strain” when the transactions were made.
‘No excuse for failures’
Mr G objected to the admissibility of some evidence, including the 2022 affidavit, in which he admitted taking unauthorised payments from the family trust.
The tribunal allowed the evidence, remarking: “The pattern of Mr G attempting to exclude his own previously sworn, and thus presumably truthful statements, was a most unfortunate and ill-judged manner of conducting his defence.”
It found he committed “gross and repeated breaches [of trust], for the practitioner’s own benefit over a prolonged period, and involving very large sums of money”.
“When his sister, and others, sought information, he prevaricated, obfuscated and repeatedly accused his sister of vindictiveness.”
While Mr G’s conduct related to family matters, not his professional work, the tribunal found it had a direct bearing on his fitness to practice as a lawyer.
“We consider he fell well short of the standards of integrity required of a lawyer, even in conducting personal, rather than professional affairs,” it said. “Further, we do not consider that the stresses upon him at the time – even if accepted as described by Mr G, provide justification or excuse for his repeated and long-lasting failures.”
The five-person tribunal panel also questions Mr G’s demeanour during the disciplinary process.
“It has to be said that we were concerned at Mr G’s level of self-justification – almost to the point of self-delusion. Even at the hearing, having had this complaint looming over him for almost seven years, if taken at his word, he displays almost zero insight into his wrongdoing. He certainly was totally without insight at the time of the misconduct.”
Mg G will face a penalty hearing at a date yet to be determined.
The tribunal’s decision is available here – Mr G 2026-NZLCDT-16-Waikato-Bay-of-Plenty-Standards-Committee-2-v-Mr-G
0 Comments