Two staff members at a New Zealand law firm have been hit with a formal unsatisfactory conduct finding after a Standards Committee concluded their private email exchanges about a colleague crossed the line into racism.
LawFuel’s Law Jobs’ Network has New Jobs Daily
The exchanges were uncovered by a third party through the firm’s email system. The committee said the communications included a racial slur used to describe a colleague and that the repeated use of that term during work hours reinforced a negative stereotype based on skin colour.
Both women resigned following an internal disciplinary meeting at the firm, and the matter was reported to the New Zealand Law Society. Even though neither individual was a practising lawyer, the committee emphasised the reach of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and the associated Rules. Those Rules apply to any employee of a law firm, not just lawyers, and mandate standards of conduct that reflect on the profession.
The committee found that the nickname used for their colleague amounted to a breach of Rules 10 and 10.3(d) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, which prohibit conduct that would be regarded by lawyers of good standing as unacceptable, including discrimination and harassment.
What stung the Standards Committee most was the lack of remorse or insight shown by the pair. Their limited engagement with the disciplinary process and absence of contrition suggested they did not grasp how serious the conduct was.
Because they were not lawyers, the committee decided that formal sanctions beyond the unsatisfactory conduct finding weren’t necessary, even though one of the women remained unemployed at the time of the decision. The committee also noted that the colleague targeted in the emails was unaware of the comments, limiting the actual harm caused.
The decision underscores that even internal interactions among law firm staff can attract scrutiny where they intersect with professional obligations under the Act, and that freedom of expression arguments won’t shield racist conduct in a workplace context.
