Mrs Woodroffe acted for a client who brought proceedings in Samoa in relation to the use of family land. The client’s evidence was that Mrs Woodroffe did not warn him about the potential for security for costs and he was taken by surprise when roughly the equivalent of $35,000 NZD was sought. He immediately asked for Mrs Woodroffe to discontinue the proceedings as he could not afford to pay and wrote directly to the Samoan court himself. He later wrote to Mrs Woodroffe about her failure to advise him on this point. Mrs Woodroffe’s position at the time, and at the liability hearing, was that she had warned him verbally. Days later, Mrs Woodroffe spoke on a community radio programme about the case and the client in derogatory terms. She partially disclosed details of her advice, instructions, and the fact she proposed to sue the client for defamation due to his allegations. Although she did not name the client, she provided sufficient detail that a limited number of people were able to identify the client. When the client later wrote to Mrs Woodroffe again about their concerns, she sent an “intemperate email” threatening to sue him for defamation unless he retracted his statement to the Samoan court.

In terms of liability, the Tribunal rejected Mrs Woodroffe’s evidence that she had advised the client about security for costs, but noted a failure of this nature would normally amount to no more than unsatisfactory conduct. However, this failure became “a point of contention” between Mrs Woodroffe and her client and she “behaved disproportionately and in breach of her duty of respect for her client”. The Tribunal considered that Ms Woodroffe was reckless in broadcasting details about the client, and this constituted a breach her duty of confidentiality, “even though identification was limited to a small circle”. The Tribunal found she had “abused her position as a lawyer against a client who was respectful of her and who had no opportunity to answer her public broadcast”. The Tribunal also found she had failed to treat her client with courtesy and respect by making the derogatory comments in the broadcast and threatening to sue him. 

In determining penalty, the Tribunal considered Mrs Woodroffe's disciplinary history and ongoing "force and repetition of her aggression towards her client" as aggravating factors, noting that her aggressive stance towards her client had continued at both the liability and penalty hearings. It noted she did not accept responsibility for her wrongdoing, nor did she show any remorse or insight (which was in line with her response to previous disciplinary matters). The Tribunal determined that the client was disadvantaged by not being given the advice he needed and was ordered a partial refund of the $37,000 paid in fees as well as cancellation of outstanding fees. Mrs Woodroffe was censured, fined $10,000 and ordered to pay costs.

It is noted that the practitioner has filed an appeal of the liability decision.