A standards committee reminded lawyers must ensure that they respond to clients in any circumstance
A New Zealand Law Society | Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa standards committee has imposed a $1,000 fine on a lawyer after he failed to respond to a client for months.
The lawyer, who was given the moniker Mr TY, had been engaged to represent the client, referred to as Mr B, in a property dispute. In line with Mr TY’s legal advice, Mr B coordinated with third-party services to secure specialist reports and evidence.
Mr B requested Mr TY to help him several times, but the lawyer did not communicate with Mr B for two months. Thus, Mr B submitted a complaint to the Law Society.
Mr TY proceeded to send an email to Mr B informing him of a family member’s unexpected death. Mr TY apologised for the silence on his end and advised Mr B to either seek out another construction law practitioner as legal representative or file an application for legal aid if possible.
Mr TY presented an email timeline to the committee detailing his work for Mr B over 7 August 2025-17 March 2026. On reviewing the timeline, the committee noted that over 7 August 2025-5 November 2025, Mr TY had advised Mr B regarding the reports.
However, no other work was recorded between 5 November 2025 and 17 March 2026. During this inactive period, Mr B had emailed Mr TY four times and received no answer.
Mr TY told the committee that his family member had died in early March. The committee found no reason as to why he could not have replied to Mr B’s emails or conducted any work from 5 November 2025 to the time of the family member’s passing.
Thus, the committee determined that Mr TY violated rules 3 and 3.2 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care for Lawyers (RCCC) under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act by failing to progress his client’s case in a timely manner and for his lack of response to client inquiries. Moreover, Mr TY broke RCCC rule 3.3 when he failed to review an expert report that he had deemed necessary to Mr B’s case; Mr B had handed said report to him on 7 January.
Mr TY’s inability to assess the report resulted in a “material and unexpected delay” in the advancement of Mr B’s case. The committee determined that Mr TY should have advised Mr B of any delay.
The committee ruled that Mr TY did not breach RCCC rule 4.2(c), which stipulates that a lawyer must represent clients and complete the work outlined under the retainer unless there is good cause to terminate as per rule 4.2.1. Mr TY’s reason for terminating the retainer was not included among the reasons considered to be “good cause”, but the committee accepted that the list was not comprehensive. It considered that the passing of a family member and family obligations fell under good cause; moreover, it conceded that Mr TY had given Mr B reasonable notice – 13 days after the death occurred. In addition, Mr TY did not seek to charge legal fees, nor had court proceedings been filed.
However, the committee pointed out that per rule 4.2.4, a lawyer who terminates a retainer must provide reasonable assistance to the client in engaging new legal representation. It decided that Mr TY’s “brief suggestions” to Mr B were inadequate – Mr TY should have at least presented a list of lawyers or firms Mr B could approach. It told Mr TY that he, not Mr B, was duty-bound to comply with RCCC requirements.
Thus, Mr TY’s behaviour amounted to unsatisfactory conduct, with the committee stating that he failed to meet obligations it considered “cornerstones” of good legal practice. It said the case served as a reminder to lawyers, especially sole practitioners or small firms, that they should implement appropriate systems to respond to clients in a timely manner in all circumstances.
