Mahvash Ikram
A Christchurch lawyer has been censured and ordered to pay costs and compensation of more than $21,000 after seriously letting down a legal-aid client in a civil proceeding – in part, by failing to appear at a key court hearing.
She then ignoring formal requests from the Canterbury Westland Legal Standards Committee after her aggrieved client laid a complaint.
But after finding her guilty of unsatisfactory conduct and misconduct, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal declined to suspend the young employed barrister from practice, focusing instead on remediation, compensation and ongoing supervision because of her serious health and personal issues.
She was also granted permanent name suppression and is referred to in the tribunal’s decision only as “Ms X”.
The tribunal found that the practitioner had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct “at the serious end of the spectrum” in her handling of a client’s case “which might at least have reached negligence”. The misconduct charge related to her failure to comply with a formal information request from the standards committee.
But the tribunal also noted the practitioner had provided evidence that indicated she was suffering from a serious illness at the time that caused her considerable pain and was also recovering from another issue, details of which were redacted in the decision.
Ms X had realised she needed help and had reached out to her professional body for support but none was forthcoming, the tribunal noted.
“Her personal challenges spiralled to the point where she coped by ignoring rather than confronting and overcoming challenges. Her conduct reflected desperation, not arrogance,” it said.
The facts
Ms X accepted instructions in April 2023 to act for a legal aid client (Ms P) who was facing a summary judgment application brought by her former partner in relation to an alleged loan.
Ms X completed a civil legal aid application, which was granted. However, the tribunal found she had limited experience in this type of civil litigation and was already committed to another hearing at the time Ms P’s matter was due to be called.
On the eve of a court appearance, Ms X filed a notice of opposition and evidence in support, but failed to seek leave for the late filing. She also sought an adjournment, which was declined.
Ms X then emailed her client, advising that she would not be appearing in court and that Ms P should appear on her own, by telephone. While this email outlined the “high points” of the arguments to be made, it did not alert Ms P to the need to seek leave for the late filings.
Ms P was never heard because the court did not have a correct telephone number for her. The court ultimately granted leave for the late material to be admitted and set a timetable for submissions and a substantive hearing, but it raised concerns about the way the case was being handled.
In the following months, the tribunal found there was little communication between Ms X and her client. Despite assurances that the case was in hand, Ms X failed to file submissions in accordance with the timetable, did not respond to reminders from the registrar and failed to turn up in court when the summary judgment application was heard.
Judgment was entered against Ms P and costs were awarded to the plaintiff, with the court being unaware that Ms P was a legal aid client.
The tribunal noted that the strength of the plaintiff’s claim meant the outcome could not be attributed to Ms X’s failures. However, it found the costs order against her client was unlikely to have been made had Ms X remained engaged.
Ms P learned of the judgment directly from the registrar and was left “devastated” when she discovered her lawyer had not appeared. She was effectively forced to represent herself from that point onwards.
After a complaint was made, Ms X made matters worse by failing to engage with the Lawyers Complaints Service and the standards committee.
The tribunal said she adopted an “ostrich like approach” and ignored a formal request for information issued under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.
Penalty
In considering penalty, the tribunal accepted extensive evidence that Ms X had been experiencing serious health problems at the time, which materially affected her ability to meet her professional obligations. It accepted professional evidence that those circumstances impaired her functioning.
It emphasised that the conduct was out-of-character for a practitioner otherwise described as competent, diligent and well regarded by peers and the judiciary. It placed weight on the fact that she was now practising in a closely supervised environment with supportive employers and clear practice boundaries.
Declining to impose a suspension, the tribunal said rehabilitation and compensation had “strongly guided the outcome”, and concluded Ms X posed no ongoing risk to consumers of legal services.
Ms X was censured, ordered to provide a written apology to the complainant and directed to pay $6,516.50 in compensation, reflecting the costs awarded against the client.
She was also ordered to contribute $15,000 toward the standards committee’s costs.
Read the tribunal’s decision here.
0 Comments