The standards committee sent the information request after a complaint was made by a client’s husband and son about Mr Kwon’s handling and fees in respect of an immigration matter. The standards committee sent two information requests requiring Mr Kwon provide copies of all invoices, terms of engagement, any receipts, relevant trust account statements and relevant client account information to enable investigation into the complaint. Mr Kwon’s first response was that he did not possess the information. He then went on to say that he could not disclose it because of client confidentiality and privilege; and thirdly, he resisted the propriety of the complaint itself given it was not made by the client.  

In determining liability, the Tribunal noted that a lawyer’s professional obligation to comply with an information request from a standards committee was ‘unambiguous’. The Tribunal found Mr Kwon had no valid reason for refusing the information request and that Mr Kwon had misunderstood the relevant legislation and the boundaries of client confidentiality and privilege (despite the standards committee explaining why these did not apply to the material sought). The Tribunal noted that if Mr Kwon had concerns about the information request, he should have discussed these with the standards committee, consulted a colleague or sought independent legal advice. The Tribunal considered Mr Kwon’s “obdurate and repeated refusal” to provide the information reasonably sought can undoubtably be seen as a wilful breach of his obligations and therefore amounted to misconduct. 

In considering penalty, the Tribunal noted that Mr Kwon had experienced a late 'epiphany' and accepted that he should have provided the material sought after having obtained independent legal advice ahead of the penalty hearing. Furthermore, Mr Kwon had complied with the information request and sought support from a senior practitioner to advise him in the management of his practice on a regular basis. Balanced against these mitigating factors, the Tribunal noted that Mr Kwon had a history of non-compliance with the complaints process. The Tribunal also noted that he still appeared unable to accept that his refusal was wilful in nature and this raised concerns around his level of insight. In terms of penalty, it considered the seriousness of the conduct demanded suspension for a period of two months commencing 6 May 2025. Mr Kwon was censured and ordered to take advice on the management of his practice from a senior practitioner for 12 months. Mr Kwon was also ordered to pay costs.  

It is noted that Mr Kwon has filed an appeal against the penalty decision. The order for suspension is stayed pending determination of the appeal or further order of the court.