Unsatisfactory conduct. Supervision of staff solicitor
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 754.
After a staff solicitor’s incompetence led to a client facing liquidation proceedings a Standards Committee found the principal of the firm guilty of unsatisfactory conduct for failing to provide proper supervision.
The Standards Committee had begun an own-motion investigation into the staff solicitor’s competence, in response to an affidavit from the client. The Standards Committee then opened a separate investigation into whether the firm’s principal was providing effective, regular and proper supervision of the staff solicitor and of the branch office where he was employed.
There had been, the Standards Committee said, “a remarkable sequence of incompetent conduct” on the part of the staff solicitor. This included failing to file court documents within the time limits set by the court, failing to appear in court when the matter was called, failing to keep the client properly informed, and filing a High Court appeal without proper instructions from the client. The staff solicitor’s conduct culminated in the client facing liquidation proceedings, and the principal’s insurers then had to step in to resolve the matter.
The principal conceded that his supervision of the staff solicitor had been inadequate and that the solicitor had made significant errors. However, the principal said that every time he discussed the file with the staff solicitor, he was given highly credible and detailed explanations that led him to believe the case was in hand.
The Standards Committee was satisfied that the principal had breached Rule 11.3 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules, which states: “A lawyer in practice on his or her own account must ensure that the conduct of the practice (including separate places of business) and the conduct of employees is at all times competently supervised and managed by a lawyer who is qualified to practise on his or her own account.”
The Standards Committee concluded that the principal’s conduct was unacceptable as measured against the standards of “competent, ethical and responsible practitioners” (B v Medical Council [2005] 3 NZLR 810). It found him guilty of unsatisfactory conduct and reprimanded him. The Standards Committee decided not to impose a fine, given that the principal fully appreciated the shortcomings in his supervision and that he had received assurances and convincing explanations from the staff solicitor when he had made attempts at supervision. The committee also ordered the principal to pay $750 in costs to the New Zealand Law Society.