Mr D claimed that police disclosed his neighbour’s conviction history to him when two officers showed up at his door following a complaint he made about his neighbour, with whom he shared a driveway.
However, he later said a “close friend” who worked in the justice system proactively gave him the information after learning of the animosity between the pair. That friend has since died.
But at a hearing held last year on the matter, it was alleged the lawyer likely obtained the information from a probation officer, which he denied.
The standards committee, pursuing the charges on behalf of the Law Society, claimed he used his status as a lawyer to access the information and then used it for his personal benefit.
A Department of Corrections employee told the tribunal it was standard practice for probation officers working in the courts to provide criminal histories to lawyers who requested them.
That staff member explained how lawyers can request copies of their clients’ criminal histories but cannot request those of members of the public.
In the ruling, the tribunal found the probation officer was the likely source of the conviction history given Corrections’ system showed the neighbour’s file had been accessed the day before the mediation meeting.
“There is no other known basis upon which the probation officer’s login would have been used in relation to the neighbour with whom Corrections, at the time, had no business,” the tribunal stated.
At the hearing, the probation officer was not specifically asked whether she recalled accessing the file for Mr D several years ago but conceded it was her login that had been used.
NZME understands Corrections investigated the incident.
The lawyer went on to present the conviction history at a mediation meeting with his and the neighbour’s property manager.
The neighbour could not attend the meeting but his wife was there.
She did not know about her husband’s criminal history and told the hearing it was “entirely inappropriate” and “the most traumatic time of my life”.
The tribunal stated in its ruling that it was “not impressed with [the lawyer’s] candour”.
“Over a period of years, he has not been candid with the Law Society, the Legal Complaints Review Officer, the Standards Committee or the Standards Committee Investigator. He deliberately misled them about where he obtained this information.”
It said that however Mr D learned of the criminal convictions, he had chosen to use the information in a “disproportionate and unjustifiable” manner.
“That conduct in itself is devious because he must have been aware that the material did not support the arguments for which he advanced it.
“We find he deliberately lied to the Law Society to draw attention away from the real source of his information. And he maintained that lie continuously for almost seven years.”
The tribunal found Mr D came up with the narrative his friend in the justice system had given him the information after he realised his claim about the police doing it seemed “doomed”.
“We found him evasive, and reluctant to make sensible concessions about certainty of recall,” the tribunal said.
“For further example, he clung to his story that the police accessed material about the neighbour when there was no credible basis to suggest they had a name upon which to search.”
The tribunal said that by the end of last year’s hearing, it had formed a “sorry view of Mr D’s credibility” and that it went beyond mistaken recollections.
“We find he has advanced deliberate falsehoods to cover his wrongdoing.”
Mr D maintained he got the information from the police and then from his friend at the court.
“In the context of being very fearful of [the neighbour] and having very real beliefs that my family and I may not be safe I discussed the situation with a close friend who made inquiries as to [the neighbour’s] history,” he said.
“At the time I did not know how these inquiries were made. I was told by telephone that [the neighbour] has a large number of convictions but nothing recently or for violence.
“At the time I was very worried about my own physical safety and safety of my family and this was a lapse of judgment.”
A hearing will be held to determine what penalty will be imposed for the misconduct. The tribunal has the power to impose fines or in some cases strike lawyers from the profession.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
