He prepared agreements with clauses prohibiting clients from complaining to the NZLS
The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal has imposed penalties on an Auckland lawyer after finding he engaged in misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct in relation to immigration service agreements, excessive fees, and debt recovery proceedings against former clients.
The tribunal found the practitioner liable on one charge of misconduct and two charges of unsatisfactory conduct, according to a media release issued by the New Zealand Law Society. The tribunal censured the lawyer, prohibited him from practising on his own account from 1 September 2026, ordered fee reductions for eight complainants, and directed him to pay $68,211.08 in costs.
The tribunal found the lawyer had “advanced his own interests against those of his clients” in pursuit of financial reward, which it said exposed a significant “blind spot in his professionalism.”
The case arose from immigration service packages marketed as a “one-stop-shop” for clients seeking to relocate to New Zealand. The packages included visa assistance and job-matching services. Clients signed written agreements prepared by the lawyer that contained conditions the tribunal later found incompatible with a lawyer’s professional obligations.
Among the terms were provisions stating clients could not complain to the Law Society, with breaches attracting a penalty of at least US$50,000. Other clauses required clients to remain employed for at least 24 months or face penalties of $1,000 per month. The agreements also instructed clients to “work hard” and avoid losing their jobs.
The tribunal found those conditions could not be reconciled with a lawyer’s primary duty of care and concluded that the conditions elevated the lawyer’s commercial interests above his clients’ rights. It characterised the conduct as serious misconduct.
Clients initially paid a $500 fee and were invoiced for the balance only after securing employment. Total invoices ranged from $26,500 to $78,000, including disbursements. The tribunal found the lawyer failed to explain how the fees were calculated and overvalued the services provided to eight of the nine complainants.
Although the tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct on the fee issue, it concluded that the lawyer had grossly overcharged clients to the point of unsatisfactory conduct. It also found he failed to advise clients about alternative payment arrangements or provide detailed fee breakdowns.
The tribunal further addressed debt recovery proceedings. The lawyer admitted engaging in unsatisfactory conduct by swearing affidavits stating that the clients had no defence, despite knowing they had challenged the reasonableness of the fees. The tribunal described that conduct as “an overreach” and characterised the conduct as being of moderate gravity.
In determining the penalty, the tribunal said the lawyer’s “overall wrongdoing justifies the severity of suspension”, but concluded structured oversight through employment would be more appropriate. It cited his disciplinary history, lack of insight, and unwillingness to accept guidance as factors indicating a risk of repeated misconduct if allowed to continue practising independently.
Under the orders, the lawyer is barred from practising on his own account unless later authorised by the tribunal. The tribunal stated it hoped he would gain insight and eventually demonstrate fitness to resume practice as a principal.
