Georgina Bond
A legal secretary who stole more than $1.3 million from a law firm’s client account has avoided being permanently barred from working in the legal sector, despite the New Zealand Lawyers & Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal describing her offending as being at the “very highest end” of misconduct.
As previously reported by LawNews, the woman was facing the prospect of a do-not-employ order – the equivalent of a lawyer being struck off. However, in a written decision released this week, the tribunal accepted she was “extremely remorseful” and a low risk of reoffending.
The tribunal’s decision describes ‘Ms Y’ as a young woman who was employed by a legal firm for a little under a year, having had some years’ experience at another firm previously.
Ms Y admitted forging client documents to transfer $170,000 and later a further $1.2 million to herself in order to buy a house.
The tribunal heard she was under pressure from her partner and his family to purchase their own home, as they had been living with her partner’s family for some time.
After signing a sale and purchase agreement for a private residential property, she forged a client statement that enabled her to transfer $170,000 to pay the deposit on the property. She thought she would be able to pay the money back once she accessed money tied up in a Bitcoin investment.
However, she wasn’t able to transfer the Bitcoin funds into a form she could access.
Closer to settlement, she used the same process to transfer an even greater amount of $1,206,000.
The firm discovered her actions in February 2025, after concerns were raised about her wellbeing and behaviour.
She was dismissed from the firm after admitting to taking the money. Her actions were reported to the police, and she pleaded guilty to two charges of obtaining by deception and was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention.
She was then charged with a section 11 misconduct under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act in this process and pleaded guilty.
The tribunal said the offending involved a serious breach of trust, was planned rather than impulsive, and would ordinarily warrant the equivalent of a lawyer being struck off. Previous comparable cases had resulted in “not to employ” orders effectively preventing future work in legal practice.
However, several mitigating factors persuaded the tribunal to impose a less restrictive order in this case. Among them were Ms Y’s early acceptance of responsibility, her genuine remorse and her willingness to cooperate with the disciplinary process.
She had also paid back the money in full to her former firm and its client, including legal fees, public relations fees and the legal fees of insurers – a level of reparation the tribunal said was “highly unusual”.
Supportive references were provided by two lawyers who knew Ms Y well, expressing the view that the conduct was out of character for her and the probation report found she was at low risk of reoffending.
Rather than permanently banning her from working in a law firm, the tribunal ruled that if she wanted to return to legal practice in the future, she must get the tribunal’s written approval. It said this was a “proportionate and safe” response that still protects the public and the reputation of the profession.
0 Comments