The lawyer, who was referred to as Ms X, was engaged by the client, Ms P, to act civil in proceedings. Ms X was not experienced in the particular area of law but wanted to help Ms P as she was finding it difficult to secure representation. In the course of representing Ms P, Ms X failed to attend scheduled Court appearances, failed to respond to attempts by Ms P to contact her and failed to provide timely legal advice. Ms P was left in a position where she was unrepresented, subject to summary judgment and exposed to costs. Ms P complained about Ms X and the Standards Committee ordered that Ms X provide the client file. Despite several attempts by the Lawyers Complaints Service to engage with Ms X, she failed to respond to the complaint or provide the file.  

Ms X was charged with unsatisfactory conduct for her failings in respect of the client and misconduct for failing to comply with the order of the Committee.  The Tribunal considered Ms X had badly let down Ms P, including by not informing the Court that she was legally aided, which led to costs being awarded against her. Taking this into account, the Tribunal determined the conduct “might well have reached negligence and thus must be considered at the most serious end of the spectrum of unsatisfactory conduct.” In respect of failing to comply with the Committee’s order, the Tribunal considered Ms X adopted an “ostrich like approach” in her lack of responsiveness to the information request which was a serious breach of her professional obligations and was therefore misconduct. 

In determining penalty, the Tribunal considered Ms X’s conduct was out of character and the by-product of serious personal problems that impacted her ability to carry out her professional responsibilities and function effectively as a lawyer at the relevant time. The Tribunal considered Ms X’s circumstances, which were supported by professional evidence, as being a mitigating feature. A further mitigating feature was that Ms X obtained employment and now practises in a supportive and collegial environment. The Tribunal considered Ms X poses no risk to consumers of legal services and declined to impose a period of suspension on the basis that Ms X had addressed the underlying causes of her professional lapses with appropriate treatment, time away from work and counselling. The Tribunal imposed a censure, and an order that Ms X formally apologise and pay compensation of $6,116.50 to the complainant. Ms X was also ordered to contribute to costs.