The conduct subject of the charge covered a period of approximately two years beginning in February 2021 when the client sought Dr Ord’s advice concerning mishandling of sensitive information by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Mr Ord’s failures can be broken down into three categories. The first related to failures in relation to the legal services provided and included failing to properly advise his client on the merits of her claims, failing to comply with the requirements for pleadings and unduly exposing his client to adverse costs. The second category related to attacks on the reputation of others by pleading misfeasance in office without good cause or reasonable grounds. The third category related to communication with the client and included failing to ensure he had instructions before filing key documents, engaging in disrespectful and unprofessional communication and failing to provide timely updates. 

In terms of liability, Dr Ord accepted his conduct involved the reckless contravention of a number of relevant rules and was therefore misconduct. The Tribunal noted that this case highlighted the “perils of a lawyer taking on instructions outside the ambit of his or her expertise” and considered that Dr Ord’s lack of familiarity with civil litigation led him into error which compounded as time went on and the matter became more complicated. The Tribunal noted that the failures were “serious despite Dr Ord’s intentions to assist a client who might otherwise might not receive legal representation”. It assessed the misconduct as being at a moderate level given the length of time over which it occurred and the opportunities which Dr Ord had to reflect on his competence and ability to continue.  

In determining penalty, the Tribunal considered disrespectful communications and the losses suffered by the client aggravated the conduct. However, there were several mitigating features including Dr Ord’s desire to assist the client with a difficult case, his sincere remorse, his clean disciplinary history after 20 years in practice and his willingness to restrict his practice. Dr Ord also volunteered to pay his client compensation which the Tribunal regarded as commendable. The Tribunal considered censure marking out the seriousness of the conduct and a restriction of Dr Ord’s future practice to exclude civil litigation. Dr Ord was also ordered to pay compensation to the client and provide her with a written apology. He was also ordered to pay costs.