Unsatisfactory Conduct: Lawyer’s inaction meant client made own appeal submissions
This is a summary of a decision by a Lawyers Standards Committee under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. This summary was published in LawTalk 781, 23 September 2011.
A client had to make his own Supreme Court submissions after his legal aid lawyer failed to contact him for more than two months after being assigned the case. For this, a Lawyers Standards Committee censured and fined the lawyer $500.
The lawyer had been assigned the case in mid-September 2010. On 7 October and again on 27 October the client telephoned the Legal Services Agency (LSA) to say he had been unable to contact the lawyer about his appeal.
The LSA emailed the lawyer on both occasions but got no response. On 22 November the client told the LSA he had lodged his own appeal submissions in order to meet the filing deadline.
The LSA upheld the client’s complaint and informed the lawyer it saw this as a serious matter. It told him it would issue him with a first and final notice, place him in its audit programme, and refer the complaint to the New Zealand Law Society.
The lawyer did not attempt to excuse his default, accepting that the LSA’s complaint was justified. However, he told the committee he was reorganising his practice to prevent similar problems in the future. This included consulting with his accountant and hiring an administrative assistant.
The committee found the lawyer had failed to act competently and in a timely manner consistent with the terms of his retainer and with the duty to take reasonable care, a breach of the Conduct and Client Care Rules (Rule 3). He had also failed to respond to his client’s inquiries in a timely manner (breaching Rule 3.2). His conduct had fallen short of the standard of competence and diligence the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent lawyer.
The committee found the lawyer guilty of unsatisfactory conduct and censured him. As well as fining him, the committee ordered him to pay the Law Society $500 in costs.
The committee acknowledged the lawyer’s cooperation, his frankness in admitting his default, and the steps he had taken to improve his practice, without which the fine would have been greater.
This is a summary of a decision by a Lawyers Standards Committee under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.