New Zealand Law Society - Lawyer suspended for failing to protect client interests and inadequate practice management

Lawyer suspended for failing to protect client interests and inadequate practice management

The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) found Wellington practitioner Justine King (Ms King) guilty of one charge of misconduct for failing to protect her client’s interests in respect of a Family Court matter and two charges of negligence and incompetence which related to her inadequate management of practice and for failing to respond to the Standards Committee. The Tribunal suspended Ms King for four months and made an order prohibiting her from practising on her own account until authorised by the Tribunal. Ms King was ordered to pay an emotional harm compensation award of $4,000 to the complainant in respect of the misconduct charge.  

The misconduct charge stemmed from proceedings in which Ms King acted for the complainant, Mr H, in a guardian dispute where he sought to oppose his child being vaccinated against Covid-19. At the outset, Ms King failed to advise Mr H of risks involved in the litigation, including the risk of costs. She then conducted the litigation matter in a manner that exposed her client to an increased risk of costs by disregarding the directions of the Court on how the matter was to proceed. When the Court made a costs order against Mr H, Ms King failed to inform him of that order. She also took various steps in the proceedings without seeking instructions and misled the Court about Mr H’s legal aid status. The Tribunal held Ms King’s actions and failures overall in acting for Mr H “would be regarded by lawyers of good standing as disgraceful or dishonourable.” 

The first negligence charge related to fundamental issues with the manner in which Ms King managed her practice including the lack of appropriate conflict checking; failure to provide letters of engagement to clients and poor file management which often resulted in Ms King missing filing deadlines or court appearances. The Tribunal considered these issues collectively demonstrated Ms King’s failure to administer her practice in a manner that ensured her professional duties to her clients were adhered to. The second negligence charge related to Ms King’s conduct during the inquiry by the Standards Committee. The Tribunal found Ms King had failed to respond to reasonable requests for information from the Standards Committee over a prolonged period despite being reminded of her professional obligation to do so.  

In determining penalty, the Tribunal’s impression of Ms King was “that of a sole practitioner who was out of their depth, struggling with the demands of practice to the detriment of her clients.” Ms King failed to engage with the disciplinary process despite being given repeated opportunities to inform the Tribunal about her situation. It considered Ms King would benefit from an absence from practice for some months to “recover her health, make plans for her future and overcome whatever obstacles there are in her life that prevent her from engaging with her professional body.” The Tribunal determined some restriction must be placed on Ms King’s ability to practise in future and that she would benefit from “the guidance and collegiality of working in a firm where she could observe and adopt good systems for client management and support.” The Tribunal suspended Ms King for a period of four months and made an order prohibiting her from practising on her own account until authorised. Ms King was ordered to pay an emotional harm compensation award of $4,000 to Mr H.  Ms King was also ordered to pay costs.