Mahvash Ikram
A father-and-son lawyer duo from Whanganui have been censured and ordered to pay over $100,000 in fines, emotional harm compensation and contributions towards the legal costs to a client who lost her stake in a property because of their failures.
The father, Richard Moore, admitted negligence in the case at the Lawyers & Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, while his son, Robert Moore, admitted misconduct for failures to identify and act on clear conflicts of interest that led to the complainant losing her property interest.
The tribunal fined both practitioners $10,000 each, a contribution of $5,000 each to the complainant’s legal costs and ordered the father to pay $10,000 and the son to pay $12,500 as emotional harm compensation. They were also instructed to pay costs incurred by the standards committee and the tribunal, which were $11,115 and about $52,000 respectively.
The tribunal also censured the pair and ordered them to issue a written apology to the complainant.
Robert Moore must also complete two New Zealand Law Society courses within the next 12 months, one on managing conflicts of interest, the other on residential property transactions.
Richard Moore, who is now retired, admitted the alternative charge of negligence or incompetence at a level that reflected on his fitness to practise or brought the profession into disrepute and the younger lawyer admitted the charge of misconduct for reckless contravention of the relevant professional conduct rules.
‘Serious recklessness’
The case relates to a family property arrangement in which the pair did not recognise and properly manage clear conflicts of interest between clients.
Richard Moore acted for a couple and the husband’s parents in the purchase of a property but did not advise the wife about the ownership and mortgage implications. Later, when he became aware of the husband’s diverging interests in terms of the property, he did not inform the wife and continued acting for the couple instead of terminating the retainer.
Several years later, the situation was aggravated when Robert Moore acted solely on the husband’s instructions to transfer the property into a trust that excluded the complainant entirely. Although he acknowledged she likely needed independent advice, neither he nor his father followed through, and the transaction proceeded without her proper involvement or understanding.
As a result, the complainant lost her legal interest in the home and was later told to leave, leading to ongoing relationship property dispute.
The tribunal said the plan for the couple, who were both clients of the firm, to buy a property with husband’s parents should have raised red flags from the outset.
“The potential for mess seems obvious in hindsight but Mr Richard Moore, an experienced practitioner with no prior disciplinary history, failed to notice it,” it said.
It said that when Robert Moore later accepted the husband’s instructions to transfer the property to a trust which excluded the wife, he did not even see her before completing the transaction, let alone advise her to seek independent legal advice.
“He should have suspected the potential context of marital tension… What he did amounted to serious recklessness. His admission of misconduct, made only days before the hearing, appears inevitable.”
Unblemished record
In its decision, the tribunal noted that Richard Moore had an “unblemished professional record” of 55 years.
“We commend him for his eventual acceptance of liability and his preparedness to face up to the consequences, including suitable compensatory payments… we recognise your otherwise proud record and the honourable way you acknowledged your errors at the tribunal hearing,” the decision read.
He sought non-publication orders from the tribunal, which were declined because he no longer practises.
“Publication stains a record long-term in the sense that, years later, a name search throws up the most embarrassing moments of a person’s life. Having ceased practice, he has no opportunity to rehabilitate this professional blemish,” it said in a written decision.
However, the tribunal hoped those reading the decision would place “more reputational weight” on his stellar career than the error that led to the charges.
The tribunal’s decision is available here – Moore and Moore -2026-NZLCDT-17-General-Standards-Committee-1-v-Moore-and-Moore
0 Comments