As a barrister, Mr Locke was engaged by a client following the breakdown of the client’s marriage. Based on Mr Locke’s advice, the client claimed an equitable share in the former family home, which was owned by the client’s former in-laws. The client paid a retainer which Mr Locke asked to be paid into his personal bank account.  The case failed for lack of proof of fundamental facts relevant to the claims and Mr Locke’s client was ordered to pay costs. The client complained that he did not receive adequate advice as to the risks of litigation and that Mr Locke’s fees greatly exceeded the initial fee estimate (which he had not updated prior to the hearing).   

Mr Locke was charged with negligence/incompetence of such a degree or so frequent as to bring the profession into disrepute for failing to provide competent advice and unsatisfactory conduct for charging a fee that was not fair and reasonable taking into account the incompetent advice given and the degree to which the overall fee exceeded the initial estimate. Mr Locke was also charged with misconduct for failing to hold client funds paid as a retainer in a trust account as required. Mr Locke accepted all three charges. In respect of the negligence charge, the Tribunal held Mr Locke “failed to reflect closely on the need to satisfy predictable jurisdictional requirements; he failed to revise his assessment; [and] he failed to offer his client an opportunity to reflect on the litigation risks”. The Tribunal held the conduct amounted to a “moderate level of professional wrongdoing by a senior litigator”.   

In determining penalty, the Tribunal considered Mr Locke’s cooperation with the Standards Committee and apology in relation to the complaint were mitigating factors. The Tribunal noted Mr Locke was no longer in sole practice and had taken employment in an Auckland firm. Having regard to the moderate level of wrongdoing, the Tribunal did not consider suspension necessary in this case. The Tribunal considered Mr Locke’s performance raised the question of his fitness but did not find he is unfit to practise. The Tribunal determined censure and an order prohibiting Mr Locke from practising on his own account fulfilled the public-protective purposes of penalty. Mr Locke was ordered to write off all outstanding fees owed by the complainant and to pay compensation of $5,000 for “emotional harm in the face of such poor performance”. Mr Locke was also ordered to contribute to costs.