The conduct occurred in 2020. The complainant, Ms Z, was a Chinese resident and was introduced to Ms Ma for the purpose of facilitating the purchase of a residential property in New Zealand. The arrangement involved nominating a New Zealand resident, a mutual acquaintance of both parties, as purchaser to hold the property on trust for Ms Z. Over WeChat, Ms Ma advised Ms Z on a variety of matters arising from the transaction but did not provide terms of engagement. Ms Ma acted for both Ms Z and the purported purchaser. She also vouched for the real estate agent despite assuring Ms Z of her importance as client. Ms Z paid a deposit of $788,000 but became suspicious after she was told to pay $370,000 more than the purchase price stated on the agreement. Ms Z instructed a second lawyer, who exposed the deal as unlawful, retrieved the majority of Ms Z’s deposit and complained to the Lawyers Complaints Service. 

At the liability hearing, Ms Ma denied acting for Ms Z and challenged the authenticity of the WeChat messages between her and Ms Z. The Tribunal found the WeChat records were genuine and admissible and that Ms Ma was implicated in a fraudulent scheme by luring the client into the transaction while knowing others would benefit. The Tribunal determined Ms Ma was aware of the unlawfulness of Ms Z purchasing the property and counselled her to evade those restrictions by means of a trust. In addition, the Tribunal found the relationship between Ms Ma and Ms Z was one of lawyer and client and that Ms Ma failed to establish a retainer and was conflicted given her connection with the New Zealand based purchaser and the real estate agent. Both these failings amounted to misconduct.   

In determining penalty, the Tribunal found Ms Ma’s conduct deeply concerning. It considered her defence of the charge, and unrealistic denial of any wrongdoing, perpetuated concern about her unfitness to practise. The Tribunal noted her considerable disciplinary history and rejected her expressions of contrition and intention to do better. It noted the delay in determining the matter was because the Law Society considered other agencies might take action and this did not prejudice Ms Ma.  Accordingly, the Tribunal made orders striking Ms Ma’s name from the roll of barristers and solicitors. In addition to strike off, Ms Ma was ordered to pay costs.