Tribunal finds lawyer Alwyn O’Connor guilty of using client’s money as his own

Lawyer Alwyn O'Connor has been found guilty of misconduct and negligence. Photo / Jeremy Wilkinson

A tribunal has found a lawyer likely took $22,000 in missing funds from his imprisoned client’s bank account and that he was guilty of misconduct for spending a further $150,000 from the same account.

While the considerable amount was taken by Alwyn O’Connor over an extended period of time through multiple internet transfers, he has since repaid the cash.

However, $22,000 withdrawn from his client Wayne Coles’ same account through multiple ATM transactions at the Porirua Club remains unaccounted for.

O’Connor, who practises law in Wellington, has rejected he withdrew the missing money and has denied he has a bank card that could be used in an ATM to access the account.

However, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal which has been hearing his case since Monday has disagreed.

On Wednesday, O’Connor was found guilty of misconduct and negligence regarding two separate matters.

It took the five-person panel less than half an hour to reach its unanimous decision.

O'Connor's case has been before the tribunal since Monday.

He was facing the charges in relation to using the money, and for an employment dispute he allegedly bungled for another client.

During the hearing, O’Connor admitted to using Coles’ account as his own “personal credit facility” while the man was in prison.

“I absolutely regret it,” O’Connor told the tribunal today.

He also admitted borrowing $50,000 from a woman, who was also a client, to repay his debts to Coles and then using Coles’ money to then repay his debt to the woman.

It’s a situation the standards committee prosecuting O’Connor described as a “money-go-round”.

Under cross-examination, O’Connor told the tribunal he lacked the financial means to repay his debts.

He said in evidence Coles had told him he could use the account and that they would sort out repayment when he was released from prison.

But Coles had only agreed to loan him $25,000.

This was proven by a handwritten agreement stating that figure. The document, signed by the then-incarcerated Coles, was submitted in evidence at the hearing.

“I would use some and replenish it, then I would use some more and replenish it. I think it was only at the end that it exceeded $25,000,” O’Connor said.

However, bank records showed the account balance dropped to as little as $1000 before O’Connor deposited $70,000 into it shortly before Coles was released from prison.

O’Connor told the tribunal he didn’t keep a record of what he used the money for, claiming the transaction history of the account was sufficient.

He provided only redacted records of his own bank account to the Law Society despite repeated requests from investigators for him to provide a full and unredacted accounting.

Wayne Coles was in prison when O'Connor used his bank account. Photo / Jeremy Wilkinson

While O’Connor has repeatedly denied having access to Coles’ bank card while he was in prison and making the $22,000 worth of cash withdrawals, he did admit to having purchased shirts on behalf of Coles for a court appearance.

The tribunal pointed out the shirts had been purchased using the bank card in question.

Misconduct and negligence

In issuing the tribunal’s findings, deputy chairman Dr John Adams said O’Connor exhibited some “seriously deficient conduct”.

“His laxity in using clients’ funds as his own and failing to ensure his client was independently advised occurred in circumstances when he was in a conflicted situation and the extent of that behaviour is significantly grave,” Adams said.

Alwyn O’Connor's case was heard by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. Photo / Jeremy Wilkinson

“We think the accumulation of factors falls well below minimal or forgivable breaches.”

Adams said O’Connor had lied to the tribunal, used his client’s funds as if they were his own and failed to provide Coles and the tribunal with sufficient records.

It was also found that O’Connor was likely to be the person responsible for the missing $22,000 in cash withdrawals.

Adams said O’Connor didn’t seem to appreciate the gravity of the breach of his duties in taking control of Coles’ bank account.

On the other matter, the tribunal found O’Connor guilty of negligence in relation to his handling of a separate client’s severance from his former employer.

“His behaviour in respect of both clients has been woefully lax,” Adams said.

A penalty decision will be released at a later date.