According to the summary of facts, Harder came under pressure from the woman to assist her in recovering her handbag and keys, which were of immense importance to her.
On January 18 last year the woman called Harder and told him there was going to be a bail hearing at Auckland District Court for one of the alleged perpetrators.
He decided to attend the hearing as an observer in the hopes of gaining more information about the defendant, and particularly if he had gang connections.
From his observations, Harder learned that the man had no convictions for similar offending and had been co-operative with police.
He told the tribunal at a hearing earlier this year that this image of the man did not seem to fit with what he saw in court.
Harder formed the view the man might be willing to give the stolen possessions back and on the spur of the moment decided to visit him in the cells.
As a lawyer known to the custody officer and being familiar with the process for gaining access to prisoners Harder was able to have the defendant placed in a court house interview booth with him.
Harder didn’t introduce himself but said he had a close personal connection to the victim.
He then questioned the man about his gang affiliations, the burglary, and assault as well as the names of the co-offenders and the whereabouts of the stolen property.
It was after the man asked Harder to pass on how sorry he was for what happened that the inappropriateness of the situation began to dawn on Harder and he wrapped up the conversation.
Harder says he then told the man to “take care of himself” which was interpreted as a threat, though that wasn’t Harder’s intention, he later said.
However, he told the tribunal that in hindsight and in the context of the situation he could see how it could have been interpreted that way.
In its findings earlier this year the tribunal said although the offending was described by Harder as “spur of the moment” he had to travel down several floors, address the custody officer and gain access to the holding cells.
“This was a clear misuse of privilege and power,” the tribunal said in its decision.
“There is a very important relationship of trust and confidence between prison authorities and the legal profession …
“When lawyers abuse this privilege that important relationship is damaged and all members of the profession suffer as a result.”
The tribunal noted that Harder was under enormous pressure at the time - though it’s not detailed what caused this other than wanting to help the victim.
Four out of the five members of the tribunal considered his conduct to be so reprehensible that, at that point in time, he was not fit to practise as a lawyer.
The tribunal’s chair Dale Clarkson disagreed and said that a “rush of blood to the head” didn’t reflect on Harder’s overall character.
“I assess Mr Harder’s poor judgment, leading to his admittedly appalling conduct, existed for about 15 minutes,” he said.
At yesterday’s hearing Harder was censured and ordered to pay court costs of $14,500.
