Background 

Mr F was one of Ms C’s junior employees for a period of around 10 months. He resigned on what he believed were amicable terms after deciding to move abroad. When applying for an overseas practising certificate, he was required to provide a letter of confirmation of his employment and supervision from Ms C. He wrote to Ms C requesting this, with a draft letter for her consideration, but received no response. Mr F followed up his request two times, expressing the urgency with which he needed the confirmation to progress with his application.  

Having heard nothing from Ms C, Mr F visited the firm in person to request that she sign the confirmation letter. Ms C refused, initially citing that she was too busy but then later making allegations about Mr F leaving the firm on bad terms.  

Issue 

Mr F argued that Ms C, as a senior lawyer, should provide confirmation of employment upon request as a matter of professional respect and courtesy under rule 10.1 of the RCCC or promptly respond to a request detailing the basis for refusing to provide such confirmation.  

It was Ms C’s understanding that there was no requirement under employment law to provide the confirmation. She submitted that letters of this kind are often used in negotiations between employers and employees to “resolve any personal grievance.”  

Failure to maintain professional standards  

The Committee noted that it is common for junior lawyers to need to demonstrate that they have certain experience for regulatory purposes and that they need assistance from other practitioners to do so. The Committee also considered there to be an understanding within the legal profession that letters confirming employment should be provided when requested and will generally include the basic details such as job title, start and finish dates and their duties in that role.  

The Committee agreed with Ms C’s submission that additional information may be included when providing a confirmation letter so that its contents are not misleading or missing relevant context. However, the Committee noted that this should be done in a way that is consistent with the obligation to act with respect and courtesy. The fact that Ms C considered that she would need to include information about her grievance did not provide any basis to refuse confirmation of service. The Committee could not see how the profession, especially its newest members, could be expected to develop without being able to provide evidence from their colleagues of employment.  

The Committee found that Mr F’s request for confirmation of employment was reasonable and did not warrant the response he received from Ms C. By not providing the letter confirming employment, the Committee found that Ms C breached rule 10 of the RCCC by failing to maintain a professional standard reasonably expected of senior lawyers. This amounted to unsatisfactory conduct.  

Penalty 

The Committee censured Ms C to mark its disapproval of her conduct. It considered the impact on Mr F was relevant to any other penalty considerations and noted that he had, fortunately, been able to make alternative arrangements with the relevant body for his practising certificate. The Committee did not discount that Ms C’s failure to provide the letter caused unnecessary stress and professional embarrassment but concluded that Mr F did not incur loss as a result of her actions.  

The Committee noted that both parties were firm in their positions and did not consider an order for an apology would fit its intended purpose of providing reflections on the conduct involved. No further penalty orders were made.  

The Committee was not aware of any similar finding which the profession may look to for guidance on this issue and was of the view that an anonymous summary would be valuable in reminding the profession of the fundamental obligations of lawyers. The Committee commented that it is a fundamental tenet of professionalism for all lawyers to assist junior colleagues in their career development.