Those charges ran up nearly 25 pages and alleged he’d engaged in vexatious behaviour, disgraceful conduct, and failing to comply with court orders, inappropriate comments and making false statements to the court.
In May, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal convened in Wellington and the man told them: “The Australians are not as civilised as us, they’re not as evolved as us.”
“Australia has a different attitude to what is fair in court.”
The man is a government employee and lawyer and lives in New Zealand with his wife whom he has been helping fight a parenting order in the Australian courts for custody of her daughter against the girl’s biological father.
He first acted as a support person for his wife before acting as a joint party to the proceedings hoping to regain custody of the girl.
He and his wife maintain the child was conceived by rape despite the Family Court rejecting that narrative.
The issue for the tribunal to decide was whether he was acting in a personal capacity or a professional one.
Lawyers, much like realtors, doctors and teachers, are subject to a code of ethics and an overarching professional body that polices their conduct.
As the tribunal explains it; poorly representing a client would be professional misconduct while setting fire to a building would fall into the realm of personal misconduct.
However, in a ruling released last week, the tribunal found that the man, referred to as Mr K, had given up his practising certificate last year, rarely conducted any legal work and doesn’t represent members of the public.
The tribunal dismissed the raft of charges and noted that while his conduct was “deplorable” it didn’t reflect at all on his day-to-day work, especially given the inherent privacy of the Family Court.
“Mr K’s fervency, and his sense that he is a righteous victim, fighting a quixotic battle in a foreign and unfriendly landscape, produce the conduct that has been complained about,” the tribunal’s decision read.
“This is unattractive, indulgent, and unwise conduct. It introduces unhelpful toxicity into the litigation. Regrettably, this kind of negative projection is too commonly seen, especially from litigants in person in the Family Court.”
The tribunal described the man’s submissions as “flimsy and legally misguided”.
It repeatedly referenced a recent case in New Zealand where another frustrated lawyer fighting for custody of his children labelled the Family Court a “vagina court” and claimed it was sexist against him.
That lawyer was suspended from practice earlier this year with the tribunal noting that his misconduct had occurred behind the closed doors of the Family Court.
As for Mr K, the tribunal said his conduct was unrelated to his day-to-day work.
“We find no risk to members of the New Zealand public arises from his conduct concerning any of the nine charges.”
Today, Mr K told NZME that the charges had distracted him from what really mattered, which was gaining custody of his stepdaughter.
“I’m pleased that it’s over, it means I can focus on the things that really matter,” he said.
He said the tribunal had highlighted how stressful the case in Australia had been for him and his family and the difficult position it put him in as a member of the legal profession.
“As a former lawyer it’s a very interesting test case,” he said.
“But it’s very difficult when you are that test case in question.”
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
