Peter Joseph Jefferies had employed Benjamin Wong without the consent of the tribunal or High Court
The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal has imposed a $10,000 fine on lawyer Peter Joseph Jefferies after he was charged with misconduct for hiring a suspended lawyer.
Jefferies had employed Benjamin Wong while aware that Wong was suspended on an interim basis. Moreover, Jefferies did so without seeking approval from the tribunal or the High Court.
The tribunal regarded this as a “flagrant” violation of Jefferies’ profession obligations.
Jefferies defended his decision to employ Wong by saying that Wong performed tasks that did not require him to interact with clients or be on site. Wong’s responsibilities included opening new files, assisting with the setup of a new trust accounting system, updating property matters, and briefing on complex estate files.
Jefferies submitted that he assumed his actions were within legal bounds, but on acknowledging his mistake, he accepted the misconduct charge.
However, the tribunal doubted Jefferies’ claim that Wong handled all his tasks from home for a seven-week span, as well as Jefferies’ assertion that those tasks all Wong was responsible for. It ruled that Jefferies was obligated to comply with s 7(2)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, which stipulated that the tribunal or the High Court must agree to Wong’s placement in a role that involved the provision of regulated services.
The tribunal determined that Jefferies’ attempts to limit Wong’s direct contact with clients were irrelevant and was not a mitigating factor. While the tribunal accepted that Jefferies did not wilfully engage in misconduct, he still violated the rules in a reckless manner.
The tribunal asserted in its ruling that a practitioner’s suspension was “a grave matter, undertaken to protect the public and maintain confidence in the provision of legal services”, and disregarding the law restricting a suspended lawyer’s employment was not a mitigating factor. Moreover, Jefferies’ disciplinary history showed that he had already incurred three adverse disciplinary judgments over trust-related matters.
Thus, the tribunal decided to censure Jefferies due to the seriousness of his misconduct. In addition to the $10,000 fine, he was also ordered to shoulder costs. The tribunal said the penalty was guided by the principle of deterrence.
