An estate agent described as deceptive and dishonest by an industry authority, has appealed a decision which found him guilty of unsatisfactory conduct.

Jason De Montalk of Re/Max Property Tauranga was contracted to sell a home in February of last year, but failed to submit the listing agreement to his office, LJ Hooker, about the time he was offered a job with rival firm Re/Max.

The Real Estate Agents Authority said De Montalk tried to persuade the complainant to cancel the listing agreement they had after accepting the job offer from Re/Max.

He was found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct by the Authority in a decision made public this week.

Re/Max Property Tauranga broker/owner John Foot said he was disappointed at the authority's decision to make the decision public while the appeal was underway.

Foot said De Montalk was a "thoroughly decent man" and "far from being 'dishonest and deceptive'," was trying to do his best for his client in what was a difficult situation.

De Montalk claimed he had an agreement with his new employer that for any listings he brought over, he would pay LJ Hooker their normal share of the fee if the property sold during the original tenancy term.

He said when he met with the complainant and signed up a listing authority with LJ Hooker that he had not made his decision to move to Re/Max.

De Montalk is alleged to have told his client that he held back the agreement "on purpose", but rejected the claim he acted unprofessionally.

LJ Hooker said they never received the original agreement and said the holding back of documentation by De Montalk was "inappropriate".

However the appeal prepared by Foot says the agreement was only relevant if the vendors wanted De Montalk to continue to handle their sale.

"Jason was never able to get a decision from (the complainant) as to what she and her partner wanted to do," the appeal says.

"Had they made that choice and communicated it to Jason I would have filled out the agreement, signed it and given it to Jason to take to LJ Hooker for consideration and approval," the appeal says.

The authority's complaints assessment committee has ordered De Montalk to write an apology to the complainant.

"The licensee's breach arises from an act of unethical behaviour, involving deception and dishonesty."

"It would reasonably be regarded by agent of good standing as being unacceptable for an agent or salesperson to persuade a client to cancel a legal contract of agency," the committee said.