Lawyer 'reckless' for not declaring liquidations

Quentin Duff didn't disclose companies, including Duff Legal, that he directed had gone into liquidation. Photo / iStock

Lawyer Quentin Duff - son of Once Were Warriors author Alan Duff - has been censured by the profession's disciplinary tribunal and called reckless for not disclosing he directed companies which had gone into liquidation.

Duff admitted a charge of unsatisfactory conduct before the tribunal, which accepted he had not acted dishonestly.

The issue arose after he completed an application to renew his lawyers' practising certificate in 2014 and declared he had not been a director of company put into liquidation.

That declaration, according to the tribunal, was incorrect because Duff had been the director of three wound-up companies.

One of these was Duff Legal, which was put into liquidation following an application by Inland Revenue, Companies Office records show.

Although Duff admitted the failure to declare the liquidations amounted to a breach of professional standards, a Law Society committee determined the matter should be put before the tribunal.

Duff lawyer, Queen's Counsel Helen Cull, told that tribunal last month that her client had filled out the application "in haste" and had immediately acknowledged his actions, saying he "could not defend the indefensible".

The tribunal, chaired by retired judge Bernard John Kendall, said signing a declaration that the contents of a practising certificate application were true and correct when some of them were not was a serious matter.

"While it is accepted that you did not intend to act dishonestly, you were nevertheless reckless in signing the declaration. You are deserving of censure," the tribunal said to Duff.

Although Duff sought name suppression, the tribunal declined his bid. It ordered him to pay costs of $7011.

It is the second time Duff has been censured, having been reprimanded by a tribunal in 2005 for failing to produce files relating to a cost revision.

Duff told the Herald that he was not considering an appeal because he accepted that as a lawyer he should be concerned about details and that he was wrong in his declaration to the Law Society.