Order directs practitioner to pay over $93k for costs and reimbursement
A tribunal has unanimously decided to strike off a practitioner’s name from the roll of barristers and solicitors under ss 242(1)(c) and 244 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA) to help deter cavalier and unlawful misconduct.
On 30 March 2026, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal issued liability findings against the practitioner. The first charge of misconduct concerned counselling a client to acquire property unlawfully under the Overseas Investment Act 2005.
Regarding this first charge, the tribunal determined that the practitioner was implicated in a fraudulent scheme by luring the client into the transaction while being aware that others were seeking undisclosed gain.
The tribunal found that the practitioner deliberately tried to subvert the law and jeopardised the client, who suffered financial loss. The tribunal added that she did not inform her employer of her misconduct and pretended to know nothing when questioned by her client’s new lawyer.
The second misconduct charge involved failing to establish a retainer responsibly and acting in a conflictual situation.
In Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Ma [2026] NZLCDT 20, the tribunal addressed the appropriate disciplinary orders.
The practitioner requested a minimal financial penalty at most. She alleged that she knew the importance of meeting professional standards and safeguarding the public, and that she has been attempting to act responsibly. She added that delay, insufficient financial resources, and her self-represented status hampered her.
On the other hand, the Standards Committee wanted to strike the lawyer’s name from the roll because she was not fit and proper to be a practitioner.
Under s 249 of the LCA, the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered the practitioner to pay the Standards Committee’s costs of $79,464.14.
Under s 257 of the LCA, the tribunal directed the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) to pay the tribunal’s costs of $13,776. Under s 249 of the LCA, the tribunal then ordered the practitioner to reimburse the NZLS in full for the s 257 cost award.
Under s 240 LCA, the tribunal reconfirmed the permanent non-publication orders previously issued for the names of the individuals involved in the subject transactions and in the WeChat correspondence, apart from the practitioner.
The tribunal expressed concerns with the practitioner’s actions when responding to the charges until March 2026. The tribunal said she unrealistically denied her wrongdoing, claimed that the incriminating WeChat messages were not hers, and mounted a foolhardy, obstructive, and obtuse defence while representing herself.
The tribunal noted that the Standards Committee thus incurred significant expenses due to overseas witnesses, translation costs for hundreds of messages, and related evidence.
The tribunal also expressed concerns about the practitioner’s disciplinary profile, including unprofessional conduct on occasions following the conduct charged. The tribunal said it could not trust her to act honestly and candidly or to take responsibility for her wrongdoing.
The tribunal held that the practitioner’s misconduct constituted serious professional culpability and a wilful abandonment of basic professional standards, which endangered the client and the public.
The tribunal rejected the practitioner’s expressions of remorse or insight, which lacked a positive evidentiary basis.
In a news release, the NZLS noted that the practitioner has brought a notice of appeal against the tribunal’s liability and penalty decisions.
