By way of background, Mr Oh offered novel “one-stop-shop" immigration packages to clients who wished to relocate to New Zealand. The packages encompassed obtaining visas and providing job-matching services so clients would have their immigration needs answered comprehensively. Clients entered into written agreements prepared by Mr Oh that purported to bind them to specific terms, including that they could not complain to the Law Society; that a breach of that condition would result in a penalty of “at least USD$50,000”; that they must “work hard, make [his/her] employer happy and … not lose [his/her] job”; and that they must work for the employer “for at least 24 months or face a potential penalty of $1000 per month”. Fees were fixed and confirmed with clients at the outset of the arrangement, but no breakdown was provided.

The complainants paid Mr Oh an initial fee of $500 and were not invoiced for the package until they obtained employment, at which time they were required to pay the fees in agreed instalments over a two-year period. The complainants’ fee invoices ranged from $26,500 to $78,000 (including disbursements). When three clients complained about fees and the services provided to them, Mr Oh commenced fee recovery proceedings and swore affidavits deposing he believed the clients had no defence when he knew they disputed the fees.

In terms of liability, the Tribunal found the conditions Mr Oh imposed on his clients could not be reconciled with a lawyer’s primary duty of care and that the conditions elevated Mr Oh’s commercial interests above those of his clients’ rights which it considered was serious misconduct.

In relation to fees, the Tribunal found Mr Oh failed to clarify the basis upon which his fees were calculated and that he over-valued the services he provided in relation to eight of the nine complainants. However, the Tribunal did not consider the evidence supported a finding of misconduct. The Tribunal considered Mr Oh had grossly overcharged clients at the level of unsatisfactory conduct noting Mr Oh failed to inform clients of other available payment arrangements and failed to specify what the fee was comprised of. In relation to the debt recovery proceedings issue, Mr Oh accepted he had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct by swearing affidavits deposing his clients had no defence, despite being aware the complainants disputed the reasonableness of the fees. The Tribunal considered this was “an overreach on his part” and regarded the unsatisfactory conduct as being of moderate gravity.

In determining penalty, the Tribunal noted that Mr Oh’s “overall wrongdoing justifies the severity of suspension” but was not convinced suspension was the most apposite response in the circumstances. The Tribunal considered Mr Oh’s disciplinary history, lack of insight into what he did wrong and unwillingness to accept guidance demonstrated he is unlikely to accept that his practice needs correction and is likely to err again if allowed to continue to practise without structured oversight. The Tribunal determined that a period of employment would provide Mr Oh with sound examples of professional lawyer client relationships.

The Tribunal made an order prohibiting Mr Oh from practising on his own account, whether in partnership or otherwise until authorised by the Tribunal from 1 September 2026. The Tribunal required Mr Oh to adjust fees for eight of the nine complainants by 20% noting the complainants benefitted from the modest initial fee and knew in advance what was to be paid. The Tribunal also imposed censure in response to all three charges. Mr Oh was also ordered to contribute $68,211.08 to costs.

The Tribunal noted its wish is that Mr Oh can gain insight and retrain his settings so that he can approach the Tribunal to obtain approval to practise as a principal again, subject to his being able to satisfy the Tribunal of his fitness to do so.