But he was described as a lawyer who had worked 45 years mainly in small centres, as a sole practitioner, or with small legal firms.
He had often worked pro bono, or without charge, for community organisations.
“He described for us how his working life changed in early 2019 when his personal assistant and secretary retired and, although a senior partner in the firm, he was told she would not be replaced,” the tribunal’s decision said.
“The practitioner was expected to complete his own correspondence and documentation. He found this a struggle. He began to feel professionally isolated and alone and began to work quite a lot from home.”
While working from home, the lawyer began issuing invoices using a Word file on his computer which included the firm’s name and GST number.
One was for a pro bono job which the client insisted should be charged.
Mr V told them to make a $600 payment to charity and, on request, issued an invoice without recognising the ramifications of using his firm’s name and GST number.
He also wrongly used the firm’s name on invoices he issued, intending to be paid personally for work carried out in his personal time. He has refunded the amounts to the firm.
Mr V then issued invoices in relation to a subdivision, not expecting to be paid but working for the benefit of his son who would receive a discount on one of the sections.
The Standards Committee said there was a significant lack of care involved in his actions, drawing attention to “his many years in practice specialising in this exact field” of commercial law.
It told the tribunal that Mr V had committed a “reckless breach of the rules or at the very least, negligence to a degree which would bring the profession into disrepute”.
The tribunal, acknowledging Mr V’s “oft-repeated” statements that he was not competent with technology, described his failings as “careless ineptitude” rather than reckless or wilful.
“There was, in our view, no ill-founded intent to circumvent or ignore his professional duties.”
However, it said that a member of the public might view his behaviour, especially where GST was involved, as reprehensible or unacceptable and requiring sanction by his professional body.
“We consider that the number of invoices involved and the period of time over which they were issued... takes this conduct considerably beyond a straight breach of the rules or ‘unprofessional conduct’ and into the level of negligence such as to bring the profession into disrepute.
“The rendering of an invoice requires care and propriety from the person who has taken responsibility for the task and that was lacking in each instance.”
The tribunal found that misconduct had not been proved, but negligence had been.
The lawyer is no longer listed on the lawyers’ registry.
