The Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found the lawyer guilty of misconduct
A senior lawyer’s management style caused five juniors to resign from her firm in a single day, reported the NZ Herald.
During a disciplinary hearing, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal learned that the lawyer, who is under name suppression, had set tasks that the juniors under her employ felt they lacked experience for. The lawyer also had minimal in-person contact with staff and questioned juniors who asked for time off due to sickness.
Two staff members had raised concerns to the Friends Panel at the Law Society regarding the manner in which the lawyer, given the moniker of Ms A, instructed them to work and expressed worries about their personal wellbeing as well as the experience needed for the tasks given to them. Seven ex-employees told the tribunal that Ms A was often out of the office because she was working overseas or in other areas of New Zealand.
The tribunal heard that the junior lawyers hosted staff meetings and delegated work amongst themselves. The juniors were also required to complete 7 ½ hours of billable time daily.
A junior lawyer said audio notes were used to communicate, which prevented him from asking questions. Moreover, he saw Ms A only “a few days a month”, per a statement published by the Herald.
“Although some small proportion of that could be allocated to continuing education, it is clear that these juniors were under huge pressure to complete chargeable hours at a level which, at their stage, was simply unrealistic and very daunting”, the tribunal wrote in its liability decision, a snippet of which was published by the Herald.
The tribunal also heard that the junior lawyers often had to work beyond their shifts because Ms A had to review their work, which was often delegated late.
“Though the witnesses acknowledge that their contracts provided for time off in lieu of weekend work, they indicated that professional obligations to clients and the high workload meant that it was often impossible to take this time”, the tribunal said in the decision, a snippet of which was published by the Herald.
Ms A’s responses to requests for sick days were also a cause for concern. One junior reported that Ms A told the juniors they did not need to take sick days since the work was not physical in nature.
Another junior said that after she asked not to come into work because her illness was contagious, Ms A advised that the junior would not infect her colleagues if she washed her hands enough. Another junior who had a high fever was told by Ms A that her symptoms were merely “psychosomatic”, per a snippet of the tribunal ruling published by the Herald.
Yet another junior pointed out that the hours they were required to log meant their compensation would fall below minimum wage – Ms A’s response was to tell them to quit. Thus, five juniors did so that very day.
In addition, the tribunal found that Ms A had circumvented the Law Society in operating the firm herself. Ms A’s practising certificate had been issued conditionally after her ability to financially manage a firm alone was questioned; the implication was that she would be employed as a solicitor of the firm under the supervision of another lawyer who was authorised as a sole practitioner.
Instead, Ms A presented herself as the firm’s principal and managed the organisation with minimal input from other directors. The tribunal noted that Ms A was “almost entirely responsible for employment of legal staff” and “fully responsible for their training, to the extent that it existed, for supervision of all legal work, for decisions about what work was accepted and promoted, for decisions about charging practices, and for setting the workplace culture”, per snippets of the ruling published by the Herald.
Moreover, the tribunal found that Ms A had acted unprofessionally when she would not personally communicate advice to Family Court clients, delegating the responsibility to the juniors.
“It is egregious conduct for a senior lawyer with such a high turnover of juniors to refuse to engage with clients directly, because she was ‘too busy’. She should have known that the lack of personal relationship and continuity was difficult for her clients and stepped up herself”, the tribunal wrote in its ruling, a snippet of which was published by the Herald.
The tribunal accepted that Ms A had tried to help reassign her clients’ case to another lawyer. It also acknowledged that she sometimes praised staff and was a “committed and hard-working practitioner”, per a snippet of the ruling published by the Herald. However, the tribunal ultimately found Ms A guilty of two charges of misconduct and one charge of unsatisfactory conduct relating to her management of the firm and her treatment of staff, which the tribunal described as “at times appalling”.
Ms A also pleaded guilty to a fourth misconduct charge. Moreover, the firm’s supposed director was slapped with an unsatisfactory conduct charge for not overseeing Ms A and the juniors properly.
