The judge said Hill, as a trust account partner "dishonestly converted client funds from the firm's trust account" knowing he was not authorised by the trust and against the terms of the trust, although it did not ultimately lead to "actual loss" for clients, in contrast to the impact of the offences committed by McKay.
"The purpose of the dishonest conversion was to meet the firm's expenses, including wages and partners' drawings," Judge Crosbie said in notes released yesterday to Hawke's Bay Today.
"The impression I gained was that you were effectively using your clients' funds as your banker."
The judge said Hill was not responsible for loss of clients' funds because soon after his departure from the firm the account went into credit. It was McKay who was convicted for the loss of around $1 million.
He said it was Hill's knowledge that he was breaching a relationship that had been held between solicitors and the public for centuries that landed him in court.
Unlike McKay, who at the time of sentencing, still blamed others within the firm for his offending, the judge said Hill accepted the verdict and expressed "extreme remorse and regret and [felt] both embarrassment and shame".
"This very public fall from grace, if it is accompanied by your acceptance of the verdict and your remorse, would mean that this important principle of accountability is partly met."
The judge said there had been no discipline in the firm around drawing on the trust account and it became a habit, and filing false monthly certificates with the New Zealand Law Society had kept their behaviour secret until the firm was audited and folded within days.
Judge Crosbie said Hill had authorised transactions and therefore knowingly and repeatedly offended.
He said Hill's offending was less than McKay's and adopted a starting point of two years' imprisonment but granted discounts for the time that had passed since being charged and the trial, his respected place in the community, and his role in caring for his ill wife.
