Auckland Standards Committee v Lisa Kate Tregenza

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Judge BJ Kendall,Ms C Rowe,Ms S Sage,Mr T Simmonds,Mr W Smith
• Judgment Date: 06 October 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] NZLCDT 31
• Docket Number: LCDT 005/16
• Court: Lawyers and Conveyancers’ Disciplinary Tribunal
• Date: 06 October 2016

BETWEEN

Auckland Standards Committee 1

Applicant

and

And Lisa Kate Tregenza

Respondent

[2016] NZLCDT 31

CHAIR

MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL

Judge BJ Kendall (retired)

Ms C Rowe

Ms S Sage

Mr T Simmonds

Mr W Smith

LCDT 005/16

NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

Penalty for unsatisfactory conduct under s241(b) Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 — the practitioner admitted the charge of unsatisfactory conduct — a client complained that the practitioner had not been given her a letter of engagement for work done — during the course of the enquiry, the practitioner wrote to the New Zealand Law Society and to the client's new solicitors enclosing a letter of instruction — she later admitted she had written the letter in November and not when the work commenced in April — the practitioner self-reported her conduct in respect of the letter of engagement, saying that she foolishly had regarded the letter of engagement as a mere formality and wrongly thought that it was the only way to rectify the situation — the Standards Committee said that the practitioner should be censured because her actions misled both the Law Society and another practitioner — in addition to an agreed fine of $5,000.00, full legal costs and reimbursement of the Tribunal's hearing costs, the Standards Committee sought a censure — whether censure was required.

counsel

Mr R Marchant for the Standards Committee

Mr J Katz QC for the Respondent

REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL CONCERNING PENALTY

1 The respondent was originally charged with misconduct under s 241(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (Act) and within the meaning of s 7 (1)(a)(i) and/or 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act and Rule 11.1 Lawyers Conduct and Client Care Rules 2008. The charge was dated 9 March 2016.

2 The particulars of the charge were:

• (a) On 4 September 2015 the practitioner received from Frost and Sutcliffe Barristers and Solicitors an authority to uplift the file of Lemapu Onosemu.

• (b) The practitioner declined to hand over the file because Mrs Onosemu had approximately $2,000 of outstanding fees.

• (c) On 9 September 2015 the practitioner received another email expressing urgency to hand over the file and requesting the bill of costs and letter of engagement for work done on Mrs Onosemu's file.

• (d) On 5 October 2015 Mrs Onosemu made a complaint to the Lawyer's Complaints Service alleging that the practitioner had failed to provide a letter of engagement, bill of costs and her file.

• (e) During the course of the enquiry and on or about 5 November 2015 the practitioner wrote to Richard Moss of the New Zealand Law Society and to Frost and Sutcliffe enclosing a letter of instruction dated 21 April 2015 (date).

• (f) The date was false because the letter of engagement was not created until November 2015.

• (g) In doing so the practitioner made a false representation to the New Zealand Law Society and to Frost and Sutcliffe and/or breached Rule 11.1 of the Lawyer's Conduct and Client Care Rules 2008 by falsely representing that a letter of engagement had been created and sent on 21 April 2015 when it had not.

3 The Tribunal granted the Committee leave to file an amended charge on 19 April 2016.

4 The amended charge dated 4 August 2016 repeated the original charge of misconduct and added alternative charges of unsatisfactory conduct (s 241(b) of the Act) or negligence/incompetence (s 241(c) of the Act).

5 The Committee repeated the particulars of charge relied on in support of the original charge.

6 The parties reached agreement on the appropriate charge and penalty.

7 The respondent admitted a charge of unsatisfactory conduct and accepted the particulars of charge set out in para [2] above.

8 In addition to an agreed fine of $5,000.00, full legal costs and reimbursement to the New Zealand Law Society of the Tribunal's hearing costs, the applicant sought a censure but that was opposed by the respondent.

9 The Tribunal approved the agreement reached; granted the applicant leave to withdraw the charge of misconduct; and then heard submissions on the question of whether or not the respondent should be censured.

10 The...