Unnamed lawyer supposedly alleged that cases were not judged on merit but out of bias against him
A seasoned barrister has applied to the Lawyers & Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal for the dismissal of misconduct charges filed against him after he reportedly slammed judges – including Supreme Court judges – for conspiring against him, reported the NZ Herald.
The barrister, who is under interim name suppression, had supposedly said judges allied to rule against him on cases and claimed that their decisions were not made on merit. He filed his application for dismissal prior to the substantive hearing, which could result in a temporary suspension if the misconduct charges proved true.
The case arose from a longtime civil litigation that made it to the Supreme Court. The barrister had represented a member of the public in a matter involving a high-profile individual in a pedigree animal breeding industry and had disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision that in that case, the principles of summary judgment law were applied in the lower courts and that a leave to appeal could not be granted.
A complaint lodged with the Legal Complaints Review Officer resulted in the professional misconduct charges. The tribunal was told that the criticism of the judges was not the main factor behind the charges – it was the barrister’s “attack on the institution” of the law, per a statement published by the Herald.
The barrister told the tribunal that he did not know which judges he had reportedly slammed. He claimed that the addition of personal misconduct changed the original charges and said the tribunal could not advance the case without granting leave to modify the charges.
Michael Hodge, the counsel for the national standards committee, slammed the submissions the barrister made to support his dismissal application, saying that the barrister did not engage with the matters in question.
“He says the allegations do not, or cannot, amount to misconduct, but that is the very issue before you: is there sufficient evidence for the charges to proceed?” Hodge asked the five-member tribunal panel in a statement published by the Herald.
Hodge said the barrister’s allegations were serious and were provided in written form in the submissions. Thus, the evidence of misconduct charges was adequate.
The panel’s deputy chairman Dr John Adams noted that “substantive basis” for the allegations was lacking. He also told the barrister that the tribunal was authorised to change the charges at the substantive hearing.
In several instances, Adams stepped in to reroute the discussion back to the charges after it segued into matters the chairman regarded as irrelevant.
Concerns were also raised about the public’s right to be aware of the alleged behavior versus the barrister’s personal interests, with Adams stating that the public possessed the right to know relevant features about lawyers they instructed.
“We are concerned to look after you to some extent, but there are other interests affecting this”, Adams said in a statement published by the Herald.
The tribunal has reserved judgment on the matter.
