The staff member claimed that the lawyer swore and raised her voice in an unprofessional manner
A standards committee has found a lawyer guilty of bullying and unsatisfactory conduct after three incidents in which she swore and raised her voice at a staff member.
The committee ruled that the lawyer, identified as Ms A, violated rules 10, 10.1 and 10.3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (RCCC) in her behaviour towards the staff member, identified as Ms B. Ms B had complained to the New Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa after she left Ms A’s employ, accusing the lawyer of bullying and aggressive conduct towards staff.
Ms B claimed that her workplace environment was “unsafe” and “toxic”. The committee named an investigator to review Ms B’s concerns. The committee highlighted three interactions between Ms A and Ms B that flagged issues with Ms A’s behaviour.
In the first incident, Ms A supposedly swore and raised her voice at Ms B after the latter asked a question. Ms A conceded that she may have used inappropriate language and taken an unprofessional tone. The investigator’s report corroborated Ms B’s account.
The second incident was similar, with Ms A reportedly swearing and raising her voice at Ms B after the latter was unable to finish a task. Per the investigator’s report, Ms A had not sworn directly at Ms B; nonetheless, the report concluded that the conduct was unnecessary and unprofessional.
Ms B recorded audio of the third incident, where Ms A again swore and raised her voice.
Ms A conceded to the accusations and accepted that her behaviour was unprofessional and inappropriate. She did not challenge Ms B’s accounts.
Ms A said in a statement published by the Law Society that she was “deeply embarrassed and ashamed” by the incidents but denied that they represented a pattern of bullying behaviour. She said her practice was busy and understaffed; moreover, she had been dealing with personal matters.
Ms A sent Ms B an apology email two days after the incidents. She expressed immediate regret for her reactions and said she was undergoing therapy. In addition, she was now working under supervision.
The committee accepted that Ms A’s conduct was not representative of a consistent problem; nonetheless, it considered whether the lawyer had displayed and maintained professional standards. It determined that Ms A did not treat Ms B with respect and courtesy as required by rules 10 and 10.1 of the RCCC.
The committee determined Ms A’s conduct towards Ms B did not constitute deliberate harassment but did fall under a potential finding of bullying. It noted that Ms B felt “humiliated and really upset” after the first incident; moreover, it acknowledged the distress that could result from a staff member being “aggressively yelled at” by an employer.
Thus, Ms A’s conduct constituted an RCCC rule 10.3 breach, although the committee indicated that the misconduct was on “the lower end of the spectrum when set against other cases of this type” and that the lawyer was not an ongoing risk to staff.
The committee ordered that Ms A should issue a written apology to Ms B for her behaviour in the first two incidents. It also ordered the lawyer to pay the Law Society $1,000 as reimbursement for the time spent in tackling the matter through a full investigation and inquiry.
The committee said the matter could guide the profession on the comprehensive process required in considering evidence against the “bullying” wording in the RCCC and taking into account mitigating factors.
