The NZLS Standards Committee’s case against him was heard by the disciplinary tribunal over two days in November, 2016. Twigley couldn’t afford to travel for the hearing so attended via video link.
He admitted six charges of misconduct that arose from the way in which he wound down his business, accepting he was reckless by breaching various practice rules and regulations but denying many of the factual bases for the charges.
After a disputed facts hearing the tribunal found a number of aggravating matters proven which had a considerable bearing on the level of seriousness of the conduct. The decision to strike him off was unanimous.
In its published decision, the tribunal said, “The overall picture is of a man desperately fighting to save his practice and his career and in doing so taking a number of shortcuts and steps that were focused more on his financial viability than on the clients’ interests or needs”.
Twigley had “borrowed from clients without their first obtaining independent advice and debited fees from clients, which we or the standards committee, in separate hearings, have found to be unjustified”.
The facts of the case were complicated, involving five separate situations of client interactions and attendances, the tribunal said.
The consequences for those clients had been “very significant”, the tribunal said. Compensation would not be ordered as the chance of recovery was remote.
Two of the charges involved him misappropriating amounts of about $3000, another involved about $11,000. He had reimbursed an amount taken in a fourth charge.
The tribunal was “seriously concerned” about an arrangement he made with a client to borrow $150,000 as a personal loan. It wasn’t repaid.
Twigley argued the client was an experienced businessman and had subsequently repossessed some of his items that were in storage. However, the tribunal accepted the standards committee assertion that, “The fact that one’s client possesses business experience or acumen does not remove responsibility for following the (necessary) stringent rules about borrowing or contractual arrangements with clients”.
A non-publication order prevents the complainants being identified.
The sixth charge related to the unsatisfactory state in which Twigley’s files and computer records were left, and his failure to tell clients he was winding up his practice.
Just ahead of his move to Australia he had tranferred several active files and a computer he thought was holding information and trust records to another firm in Gisborne, but there was a mix-up.
The server that held the trust account records was seized by a person with a registered security interest over it and sold to another lawyer. When the error was identified, the correct server was given to the first firm.
The funds held in Twigley’s trust accounts were transferred to the first firm but without informing all the clients involved.
There was also an issue with the storage of his physical files, which the Law Society ended up having to clear from his former premises in Gisborne.
He told the tribunal he took “complete responsibility” for the way he ended his practice and was “genuinely remorseful”. He wanted to continue practising law.
But the tribunal viewed the misconduct as being “high end”. Twigley had taken advantage of clients’ confidence and trust in order to rescue his own dire personal financial situation. He had tried to minimise his conduct. The offending was aggravated by previous disciplinary findings against him — five of unsatisfactory conduct between March 2011 and March 2016.
However, it was noted that up until 2011 Twigley had conducted himself well. Given that, he “may well be capable of rehabilitation and redemption in due course”, the tribunal said.
The standards committee sought $38,381 costs. Due to Twigley’s circumstances, the tribunal reduced it to $15,000.
He was also ordered to reimburse the Law Society $5566 for its costs.
