Lawyer accused of naming himself sole beneficiary of client’s will, leaving out her two daughters

Auckland lawyer Joseph Boaz Park faced two charges before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal this week. Photo / Jason Oxenham

A lawyer with next to no experience in estate law is accused of drafting a will naming himself as the sole beneficiary of a woman’s final wishes, with one of her daughters only discovering she was left out in the days after her mother died.

The Auckland lawyer is also alleged to have made disparaging comments when the concerned daughter began asking questions, accusing her of having “psychological issues” and earlier absconding from a Covid-19 isolation facility.

Joseph Boaz Park this week faced two charges of misconduct before the Lawyers’ and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. He is defending the charges, suggesting while giving evidence that his drafting was sound and behaviour justified.

The first charge alleges he incompetently, willingly or unsatisfactorily drafted the will, while the second alleges he behaved unprofessionally when the document was questioned.

The Auckland Standards Committee’s case is not that Park intentionally set out to defraud by naming himself as the sole beneficiary, but that he was so inexperienced in estate law he had no idea how to draft a will.

The standards committee alleges that in January 2020, an older Korean woman approached Park for assistance in obtaining a reverse mortgage for her property and assistance in drafting a will.

Park, also Korean, had limited experience in wills and estate law and primarily worked in conveyancing.

Later in March, the woman provided Park with a document of her wishes, written in Korean. The document detailed how she would like her estate to go to her two daughters.

Park then provided her with a will in English, with himself as the executor, which the woman signed. The charges allege no copy of the will was provided in Korean.

The will states that the woman wished to “give, devise and bequeath the whole of my estate ... unto my said solicitor”.

Giving evidence through a translator, Park said he didn’t believe this clause made him the sole beneficiary.

“I didn’t have any benefit, it was just for the beneficiaries’ benefit,” he said. The other beneficiaries listed in the will only became beneficiaries in the event of Park’s own death.

The charges also allege the will was inconsistent with the woman’s wishes, including a specific request money be put aside for storage purposes. There was also no provision in the will for Park to recoup legal costs of managing the estate post-death.

The woman passed away in April 2020, by which point one of her daughters discovered the will and raised concerns.

Park laughed, made MIQ escape accusation - lawyer

The concerned daughter gave evidence saying she had never heard of Park and was surprised her mother had changed from their normal family lawyer. She admitted she asked lots of questions of Park.

The charges allege during conversations with the woman, Park referred to her “foreigner husband”. He said on the stand he worried the husband was interfering in their email correspondence.

The daughter eventually sought legal advice of her own, with her legal team meeting with Park in June 2020. These lawyers raised concerns about the drafting of the will.

One gave evidence during the hearing, saying at this meeting, Park stood by the will and said there were no issues. This lawyer also claimed Park laughed when asked about errors in the will.

“The meeting was very strange,” she said.

In this meeting, Park initially denied he had made a High Court probate application for the will. He eventually admitted he had applied for probate but it had been denied.

On the stand, Park said this was a miscommunication.

Park is accused of naming himself as the sole beneficiary of the will, not due to an intention to defraud, but out of sheer inexperience. Stock photo / 123rf

It was alleged that in this meeting Park suggested the concerned daughter had acted illegally by absconding from a managed isolation facility, and suggested she was improperly attempting to take possession of her mother’s property. He also made comments suggesting the woman had “psychological issues”, he admitted.

On the stand, Park admitted he made a comment about the woman absconding from MIQ, but not during the meeting. Asked about its relevance, he said it formed the “bigger picture” of the woman’s behaviour.

He also admitted to making comments about the woman’s mental state, again saying it formed part of the “bigger picture”.

After the meeting, Park recused himself as the executor of the will and as a beneficiary. The will was later amended in the High Court to include the deceased woman’s wishes.

The tribunal heard he ultimately did not benefit from the will in any way.

In her closing submission, Auckland Standards Committee prosecutor Elena Mok said Park should have appreciated he was out of his depth.

“In my submission, it engages serious negligence or incompetence,” she said.

“It has never been the committee’s case that Park set out to fraudulently take money from the estate. It is more about the ongoing course of conduct where Park admits he has limited experience with wills and estates, but has continued to work [on the will].”

“At the very least, this is a serious case of negligence. It’s not just a one-off error.”

She said comments Park has admitted to making while frustrated showed a lack of professionalism.

Park’s lawyer Adrienne Paul asked the tribunal if she could make her closing submissions via a written submission, rather than in the hearing.

The tribunal reserved its decision, pending Paul’s submissions and a further hearing to discuss them.

*The decision was released in April 2024. You can read the findings here.

Ethan Griffiths covers crime and justice stories nationwide for Open Justice. He joined NZME in 2020, previously working as a regional reporter in Whanganui and South Taranaki.