Unsatisfactory conduct: Lawyer failed to supervise her practice
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 765, 11 February 2011.
A lawyer who left her secretary in charge of her practice for eight weeks was ordered to pay $1,000 in compensation to a client who lost the opportunity to complete the purchase of a business.
The lawyer was overseas from 7 December 2009 to 29 January 2010. A sale and purchase agreement for the business was signed on 18 December and sent to the lawyer’s office on 22 December. On 19 January the lawyers for the seller sent a fax to the office, stating that a back-up offer had been received. The buyer had three days to declare the agreement unconditional; otherwise the seller was entitled to cancel it.
On 20 January the lawyer’s secretary phoned the client to tell her of the back-up offer. This was, the client said, the first contact the lawyer’s office had made with her. The client said she wanted advice on one of the conditions, and the secretary said she would consult with another lawyer, whose services they were using while the lawyer was away from the office. The client met with the other lawyer briefly on 22 January, the day on which the three-day period expired. On that day a letter was prepared confirming the contract as unconditional and it was faxed by the lawyer whose assistance had been sought to the office, but apparently no-one was there to receive it. At 5:05 pm the same day, the seller’s lawyers faxed a notice to the lawyer’s office, cancelling the contract.
The client complained that incompetence and negligence on the part of her original lawyer had lost her the opportunity to buy the business.
The lawyer told the Standards Committee her client was aware her office was closed over December and January. Her secretary had made it clear to the client that she was away and that the client had the option of engaging an independent lawyer. In this case another lawyer had prepared a letter addressed to the seller’s lawyers but had sent it to her office; her secretary had later forwarded it to the seller’s lawyers when she realised it was addressed to them.
The complainant denied ever being told the lawyer’s office was closed over December-January, and also denied being advised to engage another lawyer. She understood that the practice was using the services of a locum or consultant.
The Standards Committee agreed with the complainant that the lawyer had made inadequate arrangements for supervising her practice while overseas. It was concerned she had left her secretary in charge. It found her guilty of unsatisfactory conduct, censured her, and ordered her to pay the client $1,000 compensation. It also ordered her to pay $1,000 in costs to the New Zealand Law Society.