By ANGELA GREGORY
A partner in a large law firm has been found guilty of professional misconduct in a test case on potential conflict of interest for a client.
The firm told the Herald yesterday it was considering whether it would challenge the finding.
It cannot be named because of an interim suppression order that runs out on Monday.
The New Zealand Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal decided the partner failed to act properly over a potential conflict of interest in his firm's dealings with a major client.
In what it described as a test case, the tribunal found the firm had worked both for and against the interests of a corporation.
While it was acting on a "substantial" matter relating to the corporation from a Wellington office, the Auckland office was handling a separate matter which involved a likely conflict of interest.
The tribunal considered confidential information known by the firm from its Wellington end could have proven adverse to the client in relation to what was going on in Auckland.
The client involved was not told of the potential conflict, which was contrary to rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors.
The tribunal said the Auckland partner failed to inform the Wellington partner that he had accepted formal instructions from a third party relating to the corporation.
The client was therefore denied any informed consent by which it could consider if it was happy with the situation. The tribunal said the Auckland partner had also failed to consult his firm's in-house ethics committee, or any member of it.
The charge of professional misconduct against the lawyer was brought by the Auckland District Law Society, which wants to use the case to educate other lawyers on conflicts of interest.
The tribunal met on Monday to hear submissions on name suppression and costs.
It ordered that the practitioner pay 80 per cent of the tribunal's and the society's costs. It also ordered that the name of the two partners be permanently suppressed, but said the firm's name and details of the case could be published.
But it allowed a seven-day extension of an earlier suppression order as the law firm had signalled it might consider challenging name publication.
Tribunal chairman John Upton, QC, said in the earlier decision that there was no need for the partner to be censured as it was a test case and the lawyer was held in high regard.
Lawyer guilty of professional misconduct
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.