Puppet Directors and Burnout Sweatshops: Regulator Demands 12-Month Bench for Senior Kiwi Lawyer
The disciplinary saga that saw five junior lawyers walk out the door on the same day has reached its reckoning point, with the legal regulator demanding senior practitioner “Ms A” be sidelined for up to a year.
As LawFuel previously reported, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal handed down sweeping misconduct findings against the lawyer following an extraordinary parade of former staff testimony.
Seven ex-employees detailed a workplace pushed to the brink: mandatory 7.5 billable hour daily quotas for green juniors, relentless weekend rosters, and sick-leave requests dismissed as “psychosomatic” on the basis that law was “not a physical job.”
When one junior pointed out that mandatory unpaid overtime pushed effective pay below the minimum wage, they were told those unwilling to do the hours could resign. Five called the bluff and quit on the spot.
Beyond the workplace culture, the Tribunal found Ms A had run rings around Law Society restrictions. Prohibited from practising on her own account, she installed a nominal sole director as “window dressing” while effectively running the practice, hiring staff, and dictating client intake—thumbing her nose at regulatory undertakings.
Now at her penalty hearing, the National Standards Committee (No 2) is going for a ‘healthy’ suspension order.
Committee counsel Timothy Bain (pictured above) urged the Tribunal to slap Ms A with a 9 to 12-month suspension, bar her from practising on her own account, and order practice inspection rights alongside costs.
Bain argued that despite past promises, the firm’s open file count has ballooned from 100 to 300 files, making adequate supervision by Ms A an impossible fiction.
Defending her corner, Karen Feint KC of Thorndon Chambers (pictured) pushed back hard against the proposed benching, labeling it “disproportionately severe and punitive”:
“Seeking a suspension for such a long period… is more in line with cases where dishonesty has been an issue. It is likely that [the firm] may collapse if she is taken out of commission for a long period of time because the team leaders just aren’t ready yet to take over completely by themselves.”
Ms A argued the practice is fundamentally reformed, armed with 16 onboarding checklists, a team of five senior leaders, and daily one-on-one reviews.
However, her bid to kick any potential suspension down the road until late January 2027 met immediate skepticism from Tribunal Chair Dale Clarkson, who observed that a four-month deferral was the longest delay she had ever encountered.
Clarkson also dismissed Ms A’s application for permanent name suppression. While interim suppression was extended by five days to allow an urgent appeal to the High Court, the profession won’t have to wait long to see if the hammer drops: the formal penalty decision is due next week.
