Background 

A law student, Ms L participated in an observation programme for final year law students. She attended court proceedings and used court facilities. On a working day during the programme, Ms L went into a lawyers’ room at a courthouse. She was alone having lunch when Mr J entered. They started talking and Mr J asked Ms L about her future employment plans. She expressed some concern about the availability of graduate positions. In response Mr J discussed several options and where opportunities may arise. In explaining his advice, he referred to sexual acts that graduates could do that may lead to employment. The interaction ended when another lawyer entered.  

Ms L told another lawyer about Mr J’s comments. That lawyer made a complaint with the Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa. The Committee resolved to inquire into the complaint. It considered whether Mr J had breached his professional obligations under the RCCC and if his behaviour constituted unsatisfactory conduct under s 12(b) and/or (c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA).  

Professional conduct  

The Committee had to determine whether the interaction between Mr J and Ms L occurred in circumstances that amounted to the provision of regulated services or were sufficiently connected to legal practice to be categorised as “professional conduct”.  

In assessing this issue, the Committee considered a relevant Disciplinary Tribunal Decision.¹ In that decision, the Tribunal emphasised that social and informal interactions that occur in a workplace setting, may fall within the scope of regulated services. The concept of “regulated services” is not limited to the performance of legal tasks for a client. But may extend to conduct that relates to the professional environment where legal work is undertaken. The Tribunal added that conduct is properly regarded as “professional” where it is not “unconnected with the provision of regulated services” and that the scope of professional conduct should be interpreted broadly.  

The Committee noted that the interaction with Ms L occurred in a professional environment and within the context of Mr J’s role as a practicing lawyer. The subject of the conversation was also about employment opportunities in the legal profession. It was not an incidental or social exchange, and it was not private or personal conduct unrelated to the practice of law. In applying the Tribunal’s principles and having regard to the location, timing, subject matter and professional context of the interaction, the Committee determined that the interaction was not unconnected with the provision of regulated services. Therefore, Mr J’s behaviour was characterised as professional conduct for the purposes of the LCA.  

Breach of professional obligations 

Mr J did not accept that his conduct breached the RCCC. He submitted that the interaction was a conversation about employment pathways and while he accepted his language was “harsh”, his comments arose as an “ill-judged and crass attempt at humour rather than a serious or deliberate statement.”  

The Committee made its own assessment and considered whether Mr J had breached rule 10 (professional standards), rule 10.1 (respect and courtesy), rule 10.2 (conduct that brings the profession into disrepute) and 10.3(e) (sexual harassment) of the RCCC.  

The Committee noted that Mr J’s explicit and sexualised comments about employment pathways were inconsistent with the maintenance of professional standards. It added that his statement had the effect of undermining the dignity of the professional setting and diminishing the standards expected of lawyers. Therefore, the Committee found that Mr J breached rule 10 by failing to promote and maintain professional standards.  

The comments were also “incompatible” with Mr J’s obligation to treat all persons with respect and courtesy. The suggestion that sexual acts could create a pathway to employment in the legal profession was disrespectful. His comments framed as career “advice” risked creating the impression that such behaviour is tolerated or exists in the profession. Such an impression is damaging to the reputation of the profession. The Committee also noted that the exchange took place in a one-to-one setting and involved an imbalance in experience between Mr J as an experienced lawyer and Ms L as student seeking employment in the profession. It found that Mr J had breached rule 10.1 and 10.2 of the RCCC as he failed to treat Ms L with the respect and courtesy that she was entitled to, and his conduct brought the profession into disrepute.  

In turning to whether Mr J’s conduct was sexual harassment under the RCCC, Mr J submitted that his comments were not intended to offend, harass, or proposition Ms L. However, he accepted that the Committee may reach a different view. In making its own assessment, the Committee found that Mr J’s comments were “plainly” of a sexual nature and given the context that they were made, were likely to be unwelcome or offensive. The Committee reemphasised the inherent power imbalance between a practicing lawyer and a student trying to enter the profession. That imbalance increased the likelihood that such comments would be unwelcomed or inappropriate. The Committee determined that Mr J’s conduct met the definition of sexual harassment in the RCCC and constituted a breach of rule 10.3(e) of the RCCC.  

Conduct regarded by lawyers of good standing as unacceptable  

In establishing that Mr J had breached rules 10, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3(e) of the RCCC, the Committee considered whether the conduct met the definition of “unsatisfactory conduct” under s 12(b) and (c) of the LCA. Such conduct includes that which would be regarded by lawyers of good standing as unacceptable or unprofessional or consisting of a contravention of the LCA, or any regulations or practice rules that apply to a lawyer relating to the provision of regulated services.  

The Committee had regard to the disciplinary approach taken by a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO).² That approach held inappropriate or sexualised comments towards junior lawyers, even where framed as informal or well-intentioned, demonstrated a “…troubling lack of judgement and a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.” The LCRO emphasised that interactions involving junior lawyers or those entering the profession give rise to concerns around power imbalance and boundaries. In those circumstances, lawyers have a heightened responsibility to act with professionalism.   

Mr J had introduced explicit sexualised comments into a conversation with a law student. The Committee found that this fell “significantly below the required standards.” It also placed weight on the relationship between the parties, noting the power imbalance. It noted that the conduct arose in a single interaction of a short duration. However, consistent with the reasoning used by the LCRO, even isolated instances of inappropriate conduct may constitute unsatisfactory conduct where they reveal poor judgement, boundary failures and a lack of professionalism.    

The Committee concluded that lawyers of good standing would regard Mr J’s conduct as unbecoming of a lawyer and it constituted unsatisfactory conduct under ss 12(b) and (c) of the LCA. It added that the conduct undermined the standing of the profession and was inconsistent with the role of lawyers as officers of the court.     

Penalty  

In determining a penalty, the Committee noted that the orders imposed should be proportionate to the conduct and directed toward both denouncing the behaviour and reducing the risk of recurrence. It decided that a combination of censure, education and financial penalty was appropriate. Accordingly, Mr J was censured, fined $1,500 and ordered to pay costs. He was also required to apologise to Ms L and complete two courses related to sexual harassment in the workplace and bullying and harassment for managers and leaders.

¹ National Standards Committee No 2 v MR ZKA [2025] NZLCDT 18

² TB v Application for Review of a Prosecutorial Decision [2021] NZLCRO 205