The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyances Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) made a finding of misconduct in relation to Wellington lawyer Janet Mason (Ms Mason). Ms Mason failed to comply with a standards committee order to undertake a training course within the specified timeframe. The Tribunal found Ms Mason had acted in a way that “showed disregard for her professional obligations” by deliberately flouting the training order which amounted to misconduct. In terms of penalty, the Tribunal noted “practitioners cannot be allowed to disregard orders of their professional institutions without a serious response resulting”. The Tribunal censured Ms Mason and ordered that she be suspended for a period of three months. Ms Mason has appealed both the liability and penalty decisions. The order for suspension is stayed pending determination of the appeal or further order of the court.

The background to the misconduct charge is as follows. Ms Mason was found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct by a standards committee and ordered to undertake the two-day Introduction to Civil Litigation Skills training course (the training order) within a specified period. Ms Mason did not agree with the decision, or the penalty imposed and did not attend the course despite being available to do so. Ms Mason initially considered filing a judicial review of the standards committee decision but eventually decided against that.  She later sought to comply with the order by completing a different course, noting that she considered the course she was required to complete was “entry level...for junior lawyers with no courtroom experience”. The Tribunal summarised the reasons for her non-compliance as being her intention to challenge the order, her belief that the order was “negotiable” and partly because she did not consider an introductory course to be appropriate for a practitioner of her seniority.

In determining liability, the Tribunal considered Ms Mason was subject to an order from the standards committee that she either had to comply with, or challenge properly through the available legal channels. The Tribunal considered Ms Mason’s actions “were not those expected of a member of the profession which include showing respect for the rule of law and decisions of her professional body.” The Tribunal considered Ms Mason’s failure to comply with the training order was a wilful breach of the rules which amounted to misconduct. In the alternative, it found Ms Mason’s conduct demonstrated “…serious negligence of a type that evidences an indifference to and abuse of the privileges…” which she is accorded as a legal practitioner.

In terms of penalty, the Tribunal considered Ms Mason’s conduct and her explanations for it demonstrated a “lack of respect for her disciplinary institutions, a level of insight that revealed little understanding of why her conduct was of concern and a lack of remorse.” The Tribunal noted Ms Mason completed the course required by the training order in late 2024. However, it did not consider this factor could be given much weight in mitigation due to the lateness of her actions and because it was “no more or less than compliance with the training order”. The Tribunal cautioned “practitioners cannot be allowed to disregard orders of their professional institutions without a serious response resulting”. It made orders for censure and suspension for a period of three months. The suspension was deferred until 11 April 2025 to allow Ms Mason to complete her role as counsel assisting the Fijian Commission of Inquiry.

It is noted that Ms Mason has filed appeals against the liability and penalty decisions. The order for suspension is stayed pending determination of the appeal or further order of the court.