The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) has struck off Hamilton lawyer Benjamin Wong for misleading his client over the course of two years about debt recovery proceedings. The conduct included false representations as well as creating and sending false documents.

The Tribunal regarded Mr Wong’s conduct as high-level dishonesty and considered that a strike off was the appropriate penalty due to Mr Wong’s response to the charge, his lack of insight and the resulting inability to protect against similar conduct in the future.

Over a period of two years from April 2022, Mr Wong misled his client about progress in the proceedings. This included numerous false representations via email and telephone. He told the client that the proceedings had been filed when they had not and billed for work that had not been done and disbursements that had not been incurred. He created and sent false documents to support his deceit. This included submissions purported to be filed by opposing counsel, a Judge’s minute and email from the High Court. The Tribunal noted the conduct engaged many rules and that lawyers should never deceive their clients, their colleague or the court.

When Mr Wong was first asked about these matters by the standards committee, he sought to delay the inquiry and then repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. He subsequently accepted a charge of misconduct “in the face of cast-iron evidence against him”. However, the Tribunal commented that he remained in denial of plain facts and that it did not believe his assertion that he had forgotten forging the fictitious documents. It regarded his position as “avoidant and unconvincing”. It noted that the conduct could not be considered isolated as there were other matters before a standards committee (but noted these were not weighed against Mr Wong as part of the penalty decision).

In considering the appropriate penalty response, the Tribunal noted that Mr Wong had not “candidly confessed to the obvious wrong he must have known that he had done” and that a denial of wrongdoing to himself and others had dominated his response. It noted that because he did not accept or understand why he engaged in the conduct, he could not suggest any protective measures. The Tribunal held no period of suspension would be adequate to protect the public from “the bizarre, covert and deceptive conduct” which had occurred and therefore it was unable to find Mr Wong a fit and proper person to practise law. He was accordingly struck off and ordered to pay costs.