New Zealand Law Society - Failure to comply with information requests from a Standards Committee is misconduct
The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (Tribunal) has suspended lawyer Georgina Ruth Grant for four months after she failed to comply with information requests sent by a Standards Committee (Committee). Ms Grant accepted she failed to respond to the Committee which was misconduct. The Tribunal determined Ms Grant’s obligation to respond to her regulator in a timely manner was clear and noted “unless these obligations are given proper priority the complaints system will grind to a halt, taking the reputation of the profession and the confidence of the public with it”. In terms of penalty, Ms Grant was censured and suspended for a term of four months. Ms Grant was also ordered to pay costs. Ms Grant has appealed both the liability and penalty decisions. The order for suspension is stayed pending determination of the appeal or further order of the court.
The information requests related to two complaints against Ms Grant in 2024. Ms Grant was provided with copies of the complaints by the Lawyers Complaints Service (LCS) and invited to respond. When Ms Grant failed to respond, despite several attempts to engage with her, the Committee issued formal information requests under s 147 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 that required Ms Grant to provide the Committee with specified client information so it could inquire into the complaints. Ms Grant was given numerous opportunities to respond to the information requests and warned of the risk of non-compliance but failed to give the complaint matters any priority.
Ms Grant accepted that her conduct was misconduct. The Tribunal determined Ms Grant failed to respond to lawful requests for documents and information by the Committee noting “the requirement to respond to such queries in a timely manner is an important obligation. If a lawyer fails to respond properly, the regulator is unable to fulfil its function. Failure to respond properly erodes the structure upon which the privilege attaching to lawyers is promoted and maintained”. The Tribunal noted failure to engage with the regulatory body is a wilful/reckless breach of a lawyer’s professional obligations and is therefore misconduct.
In determining penalty, the Tribunal noted Ms Grant had no significant disciplinary history in her 30 years of practice but considered her deliberate refusal to comply was sustained. The Tribunal noted at the time of the hearing, Ms Grant persisted in her failure to respond to the information requests despite escalation of the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal determined censure and suspension for a period of four months necessary to break the cycle of Ms Grant’s inertia, encourage her to answer the information requests and reflect on her obligations. Ms Grant was also ordered to pay costs.
It is noted that Ms Grant has filed appeals against the liability and penalty decisions. The order for suspension is stayed pending determination of the appeal or further order of the court.