No further action was taken in respect of the investigation against Mr C and Mr D, for reasons including the absence of premeditation and their lack of deliberate dishonesty in the matter. Ms A was fined $4,000 and ordered to pay costs to mark the seriousness of her conduct. The Committee wished to remind the profession that lawyers must exhibit care and honesty in the documents they sign, whether in professional or personal settings.  

Background 

Ms A was a senior solicitor at a firm where Mr B and Mr C also worked as junior lawyers. Ms A was seeking to secure an extension to her home loan and needed to meet extra conditions. Her mortgage broker advised her on the form of letter to use to satisfy the bank’s requirements. However, the form of letter included false assurances.  

Ms A approached Mr B and Mr C, explaining her predicament. To secure the loan, she asked them both to sign separate letters which contained misleading information. The junior lawyers agreed to this and the loan was approved.  

The letters later came to attention of the firm, who launched an employment investigation. Ms A resigned and the firm’s designated lawyer made a report to the New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa.  The Committee considered whether Ms A, Mr B and Mr C had breached their professional obligations.  

Personal conduct 

The Committee considered that the conduct in question was “unconnected with the provision of regulated services,” as Ms A approached Mr B and Mr C for a personal favour and the letters were signed in a personal capacity, with no indication that they were lawyers. The fact that the conduct happened between colleagues at a law firm was “not sufficient to render the conduct incidental to the provision of legal services.”  

Conduct that is personal can still be captured by some rules of the RCCC. In that regard the Committee considered rules 2, 10 and 10.2 of the RCCC. It concluded that rules 2 and 10 did not apply, as the signing and supplying of the letters did not involve the administration of justice or “professional standards.” In contrast, it concluded that rule 10.2 was relevant and turned to consider whether Ms A had breached it.  

Engaging in conduct that tends to bring the profession into disrepute 

By way of explanation, Ms A stated that she relied on the experienced mortgage broker to advise her on what to provide to the bank, without considering the ramifications. However, the Committee noted that it should have been obvious to Ms A, as a lawyer, that she should not act on the advice given to her. She could and should have declined to provide the false information.    

Ms A also pointed to personal circumstances at the time that were causing her stress. While the Committee was sympathetic to the stresses faced by Ms A, it was of the view that they could not excuse presenting a false document to a bank. Lawyers must act truthfully in their professional dealings even when under personal strain or pressure from a client.  

The Committee said: 

When lawyers depart from honesty in their personal dealings, they not only fail in their “private” obligations but also place at risk the public confidence in which the standing of the profession depends…the public would think less of lawyers who do not exhibit care and honesty in the documents they sign, regardless of the context in which they do so. 

The Committee noted that it is wrong for anyone to knowingly convey misleading information to a bank, and it is especially damaging when done by a lawyer.  

On that basis, it was determined that Ms A breached rule 10.2 of the RCCC and that this was unsatisfactory conduct.  

Junior lawyers - no further action  

Both Mr B and Mr C acknowledged that the public would think less of lawyers who do not exhibit care and honesty in the documents they sign. They readily accepted that their conduct contravened rule 10.2 of the RCCC. The Committee agreed with this but considered their position to be materially different from Ms A, noting that they were acting under the influence of a more senior colleague.  

The Committee commented that the inexperience of Mr B and Mr C likely played a part in their failure to refuse the request. It was accepted that their conduct was “plainly wrong” but had “no element of personal gain, premeditation or deliberate dishonesty.” The Committee determined that Mr B and Mr C did breach rule 10.2 of the RCCC but exercised its discretion to not make a finding of unsatisfactory conduct, commending the frank acknowledgement of their error and maturity of their response to the investigation.  

The Committee took no further action in respect to the investigation against Mr B and Mr C. 

Penalty 

The Committee considered that Ms A’s behaviour was “moderately serious,” as it involved the submission of knowingly false information to a bank and procurement of false information from two junior colleagues, who were less likely to refuse the request of a more senior lawyer.  

However, the Committee accepted Ms A had acted without thinking through the implications. It also considered the advice she was given by her mortgage broker and the personal stress she was under at the time. Further, it said the most persuasive factor was that Ms A “accepted in clear terms that what she did was wrong,” helping to provide confidence that the conduct would not be repeated. 

The Committee considered a fine of $4,000 and costs of $500 were appropriate to mark its concern with the conduct.  

The Committee commented that when a lawyer signs a document, even outside of their professional practice, they are held to a standard of honesty and care that reflects directly on the integrity of the profession. To “underscore the importance” of such obligations, the Committee directed anonymised publication of its determination.