A senior New Zealand lawyer whose management style helped prompt five junior lawyers to resign on the same day has been found guilty of misconduct following a disciplinary hearing that paints an extraordinary picture of life inside the firm.
The Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found the lawyer, whose identity remains suppressed and who is referred to as Ms A, guilty of misconduct on two charges and unsatisfactory conduct on another. She had previously pleaded guilty to misconduct on a further charge.
At the heart of the case was something bigger than this obviously unpleasant office, but the question of how a senior practitioner supervised inexperienced lawyers, dealt with clients and operated a practice despite restrictions imposed on her ability to practise on her own account.
Five Lawyers Head For The Door
Seven former employees gave evidence about working under Ms A.
The Tribunal heard that junior lawyers were expected to record seven and a half billable hours each day despite their relative inexperience.
Ms A was frequently away from the office, including overseas and elsewhere in New Zealand attending hearings and meeting clients. Junior lawyers were therefore left with limited face-to-face supervision and, according to the evidence, frequently organised themselves and attempted to support one another.
The Tribunal described the billing expectations placed upon them as unrealistic and daunting.
Work also extended beyond normal office hours, a weekend roster was introduced and, although employment agreements provided for time off in lieu, employees said workload and professional obligations often made taking that time difficult.
Things eventually came to a rather spectacular head.
When a junior complained that the hours required under the weekend roster could effectively reduce their pay below the minimum wage, Ms A responded that those unwilling to work the overtime could resign.
Five junior lawyers did precisely that and, to add emphasis to their unpleasant work-life situation, they did so on the same day.
It is difficult to imagine a clearer piece of staff feedback.
‘It Is Not A Physical Job’
The evidence about sick leave was equally troubling.
One former employee said Ms A told staff they did not need sick days because legal practice was “not a physical job” and pointed to her own practice of not taking sick leave.
Another junior who became ill with a high fever said Ms A described the symptoms as “psychosomatic” and suggested the employee should consider whether she was a suitable fit for the firm.
The Tribunal accepted there was evidence of Ms A occasionally praising employees. But the broader picture was rather different.
Former staff appeared fearful of getting on the wrong side of her.
The Tribunal concluded that while Ms A was undoubtedly a committed and hard-working lawyer, her treatment of junior staff had at times been “appalling”.
Who Was Actually Running The Firm?
There was another significant problem.
Ms A had received a practising certificate subject to conditions following concerns about her ability to practise on her own account, including concerns relating to financial management.
Another lawyer authorised to practise on their own account had been installed as sole principal director, with Ms A ostensibly practising as an employed solicitor.
The Tribunal found the reality was different.
Ms A continued effectively running the operation, including hiring legal staff, supervising their work, determining what work the firm accepted, making decisions about charging and setting the workplace culture.
The Tribunal found that this breached the implied undertakings given to the New Zealand Law Society and amounted to misconduct.
The firm’s director was separately found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct for failing adequately to supervise Ms A and the lawyers working at the practice.
Clients Were Caught In The Middle
The Tribunal also considered the firm’s treatment of Family Court clients, finding that although sound legal advice had been provided, that advice was delivered in a piecemeal manner.
More seriously, Ms A had refused to deal directly with clients because she was too busy, requiring them instead to communicate with junior lawyers despite the firm’s high staff turnover.
The Tribunal described that approach as “egregious”, saying the senior lawyer should have recognised the problems created by the lack of continuity and personal contact.
Her conduct on that charge was found to constitute unsatisfactory conduct.
The Takeaway For Law Firms
There is a wider point here for law firms that emerges from this as long hours and demanding partners are hardly breaking news in the legal profession, nor is the pressure to meet billing targets.
But this decision shows where the professional line can become considerably more serious.
The Tribunal’s findings concerned not simply whether employees were unhappy, but whether inexperienced lawyers received adequate supervision, whether workloads were appropriate to their experience, whether clients were properly served and whether the practice itself was being operated in accordance with regulatory requirements.
For firms increasingly relying upon junior lawyers, remote working and aggressive utilisation targets, that distinction is worth remembering.
The Tribunal’s penalty hearing is scheduled to take place next week.
