Ms M was a sole practitioner who undertook work providing property transaction services in collaboration with another professional firm. As part of this arrangement, clients made advance payments into Ms M’s trust account pending invoices for completed work at various stages by herself and the other firm. After inquiring into a complaint by the other firm in November 2023, the The New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa discovered that between March 2023 and November 2023, Ms M had transferred around $203,000 of client funds from her firm’s trust account to her business account without authorisation. In December 2023, the Law Society intervened in Ms M’s trust account and took over its running from that time.  

In terms of liability, Ms M admitted she had not successfully reconciled her trust account since March 2023 and that she made personal use of client funds to assist her and her children in relocating to another city to escape a violent relationship. The personal payments included a rent-to-buy agreement for a property which she and her family were to occupy, school fees for the children, a car purchase and other personal expenses. The Tribunal held Ms M had abused her position of trust by using client funds for personal purposes and in doing so engaged in misconduct that would be reasonably regarded by lawyers of good standing as disgraceful or dishonourable. The Tribunal also noted that, to date, 19 claims for payment against the Lawyers’ Fidelity Fund have been accepted with the total payment from the Fund of $255,762.10. It is possible that further claims may arise.  

In determining penalty, the Tribunal considered the repeated taking of funds over an eight-month period placed the conduct “at the highest end of the seriousness scale of misconduct and the only possible response by the Tribunal is that of strike-off.” Ms M accepted that she would be struck off and apologised for her conduct which she explained was a result of years of extreme psychological and physical abuse from her ex-husband. Ms M sought permanent name suppression on the basis publication of her name and personal circumstances would breach Family Court suppression orders in respect of her two children. The Tribunal concluded that, despite the seriousness of the misconduct, Ms M’s private interest in this case outweighed the public interest in knowing who she is. The Tribunal made orders striking Ms M from the roll of barristers and solicitors and non-publication of her name and identifying details. Ms M was also ordered to pay costs.