Protecting their own

Surely the good people in Canterbury-Westland are entitled to know just which lawyer has been found guilty of serious unsatisfactory conduct. Surely they would want to direct their legal business elsewhere rather than risk it to someone described as reckless.

But no, we can’t know who because the legal fraternity protects their own…just like teachers.

A lawyer found guilty of serious unsatisfactory conduct by a legal complaints body has been granted name suppression.

The Law Society’s Canterbury-Westland branch lawyers’ standards committee made the ruling last month. The complainant was one of four brothers who argued over their father’s wishes after he died.

The lawyer, who represented the estate, swore an affidavit in support of High Court proceedings against the complainant and his brother on behalf of the other two brothers, while continuing as estate solicitor. He ignored the complainant’s requests to remove himself as the estate solicitor, before eventually ending his role after High Court proceedings began. He also deducted legal fees from an estate trust account without the permission of all four brothers, the trust’s executors.

The committee found the lawyer should have stopped representing the estate when requested, and “well prior to” the High Court litigation.

His decision to continue acting as estate solicitor was a “reckless contravention” of the rules of conduct and tantamount to serious unsatisfactory conduct, it said. The committee also said he should not have taken legal fees without the permission of all executors.

I for one wouldn’t want ot be working with a lawyer who acts in “reckless contravention” of the rules of conduct.