Mr Jefferies was aware that his employee, Benjamin Wong was suspended on an interim basis. During that suspension period, Mr Jefferies evidence was that he arranged for Mr Wong to work from home and carry out tasks that did not involve direct client interaction, including opening new files; helping to set up a new trust accounting system; updating on various property matters; and briefing on complicated estate files. Mr Jefferies evidence was that he thought he was managing the situation within lawful bounds. He later realised his error and admitted the charge of misconduct by unauthorised employment of a suspended lawyer. 

The Tribunal noted its scepticism with the assertion that Mr Wong attended to all his tasks from home over a period of seven weeks and that the tasks described were the extent of his activities. The Tribunal determined Mr Jefferies had a duty to comply with s 7(2)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 which required him to seek consent from the Tribunal or High Court before putting Mr Wong in a position where he was clearly providing regulated services. The Tribunal noted the steps to prevent Mr Wong having direct client contact were neither relevant nor mitigatory and while Mr Jefferies’ conduct was not wilful, it amounted to a reckless breach of the rules and was therefore misconduct. 

In determining a penalty, the Tribunal noted the misconduct was serious and that deterrence was an important guiding principle in terms of penalty. The Tribunal noted “suspension of a practitioner is a grave matter, undertaken to protect the public and maintain confidence in the provision of legal services”. The Tribunal added that ignorance of the law regarding the restraint on employment was not a mitigating factor. It also considered Mr Jefferies’ disciplinary history, which included three adverse disciplinary findings for trust-account related shortcomings, suggesting laxity on Mr Jefferies part. Accordingly, the Tribunal censured Mr Jefferies, fined him $10,000 and ordered him to pay costs.