Orders for censure and costs were also upheld. Ms Mason subsequently sought leave to appeal from the High Court and to stay the suspension, but both applications were declined. Ms Mason has filed the same applications with the Court of Appeal, which were also declined. Her suspension came into effect on 1 August 2025.

The background to the proceedings involved Ms Mason being found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct by Wellington Standards Committee 1 (Committee) in 2020 and ordered to undertake the two-day Introduction to Civil Litigation Skills training course within a specified period (training order). Ms Mason failed to undertake the course, and the Committee laid a charge of misconduct in the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (Tribunal). On 27 November 2024, the Tribunal found Ms Mason had deliberately flouted the training order which amounted to misconduct. The Tribunal ordered that Ms Mason be suspended for three months, censured and ordered to pay costs.

Ms Mason appealed the Tribunal’s findings on multiple grounds, including its failure to consider the appropriateness of the training order and the severity of the penalty imposed. Ms Mason also alleged procedural unfairness by the Tribunal. Ms Mason argued she had prioritised her clients over compliance with the training order and that her workload made it impractical for her to undertake the specified course. She noted that she had completed a course that she believed would meet the Committee’s requirements. Ms Mason obtained a stay of the suspension order pending determination of the appeal.

In the High Court, his Honour Justice Venning upheld the Tribunal’s finding of misconduct on the basis that Ms Mason’s refusal to comply with the training order demonstrated a wilful or reckless disregard for her professional obligations. His Honour considered the training order was appropriate in light of the earlier unsatisfactory conduct finding and that Ms Mason’s correspondence with the Committee and her actions reflected an attempt to negotiate compliance on her terms rather than adhere to the order. His Honour held that the Tribunal was justified in finding misconduct and that "A lawyer cannot use a work commitment and obligation to their clients to fail to comply with professional standards and orders of disciplinary committees." His Honour dismissed the alleged procedural unfairness noting the hearing transcripts did not support this claim.

In relation to penalty, his Honour considered “while suspension was necessary, three months was an excessive penalty having regard to the gravity of Ms Mason’s conduct overall, her personal history and her professional obligations.” His Honour accepted that there is a scarcity of practitioners within Ms Mason's area of practice such that her suspension would prejudice her clients. While acknowledging Ms Mason’s contributions to the profession and her workload, the Court noted that such factors do not excuse failure to meet her professional obligations, and that suspension was necessary to address the conduct. The Court considered that a one-month suspension, censure and costs reinforce the point that practitioners must comply with standards committee orders and uphold their professional obligations. The suspension was ordered to commence on 1 August 2025 to allow Ms Mason time to organise her commitments.