Criminal lawyer Richard Keam has been censured for calling a client "offensive names" during a meeting.
An experienced criminal lawyer who berated his client and called him offensive names said he was concerned the young man was “going down a path which would inevitably lead to prison”.
The client left the meeting feeling “distressed and humiliated” after a “moralising lecture” by his lawyer Richard Bernard Keam.
Now, in a recently released decision, Keam has been censured and ordered to pay compensation by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, after admitting to misconduct.
Keam accepted his behaviour had been “completely unacceptable” and admitted breaches of the rules on courtesy towards clients, “even to the level of a reckless breach constituting misconduct”.
Keam made a written apology in June of 2025, which the tribunal regarded as a “fulsome and genuine one”, and saw no need to make any order as to further apology.
The apology said his “words and demeanour” had been unacceptable, and there was no excuse for the “tone, language, or conduct he exhibited”.
He acknowledged clients often sought legal guidance during “difficult and emotionally charged” moments, and instead of providing the man with “support and clarity”, he had “let [his] frustration override good judgment”.
Keam is the managing director of Keam Law, an Auckland-based firm specialising in criminal law, family and trust disputes and civil litigation.
He’s been involved in several high-profile criminal cases, including last year’s trial over a gang-related Point England shooting.
He also recently represented Kre Turia, who was imprisoned on charges of dangerous driving causing death and injury, following a collision with a truck.
In 2024 and 2025 Keam was acting for a man who wasn’t identified in a recently released decision.
A week before a one-week jury trial was due to start, the man said he no longer wanted Keam to represent him.
This decision was accepted “without question” by Keam, who sought leave from the court to withdraw as counsel.
This was declined, however.
Keam’s junior lawyer, who was assisting him on the case, sent a text to the man, inviting him to a meeting.
It read, “Unless you have instructed a new lawyer, I suggest you come to the Keam Law office tomorrow afternoon at 3.15pm.”
The man never confirmed, so his arrival at the office the next day, on March 14, came as a surprise to Keam.
The decision said Keam “became frustrated” with his client because of his arrival, and that he expected counsel to prepare over the weekend for the jury trial, having earlier indicated he was seeking to dismiss him.
This was against a background of “somewhat unreliable” attendances at court and meetings, and breaches of bail by the client.
Keam told the tribunal he considered he was “somewhat more invested” in this client than usual because “he could see a young man going down a path which would inevitably lead to prison”.
He also saw a “good deal of potential” in the man.
During the course of the meeting, held on a Friday afternoon, Keam gave the man a “moralising lecture” during which he “berated his client and called him some offensive names”.
Over the weekend, Keam reflected on his conduct and apologised to him on the Monday morning.
The tribunal described the matter as an “isolated incident” that was immediately regretted by Keam, who accepted responsibility promptly and apologised.
It censured him, stating it was an important rule of the profession that a lawyer must at all times treat a client with respect and courtesy.
“You breached this obligation by speaking with your client, who as a person facing criminal charges was in a vulnerable position, in a rude and highly insulting manner,” the decision said.
Before the penalty hearing, Keam told the tribunal he was prepared to pay $5000 in compensation for the emotional harm caused to his client.
“It is common ground that no client deserves to be treated so discourteously, and that it was proper to reflect Mr Keam’s remorse in such an award,” the tribunal’s decision said.
It noted the Law Society’s Standards Committee sought $10,000 as an award, which was the only real area of difference between the parties.
However, the tribunal panel said the level of $10,000 had only been imposed in what it regarded as much more serious cases, for example in a matter that involved an indecent assault by a lawyer on one of the lawyer’s employees.
Another related to sexual harassment, and another involved misconduct over a longer period of time.
“All of these cases we regard as at a much higher level of culpability than the one-off, albeit serious, failure to the client in the current matter. For that reason, we ordered a compensation payment of $5000,” the decision said.
The costs of the Standards Committee, despite the matter’s relatively speedy passage and the co-operation of the practitioner, were about $25,000, even at the “very reasonable rates charged by prosecuting counsel”.
The prosecutor conceded it was proper for the tribunal to recognise co-operation on the part of a practitioner “who swiftly admits a charge and co-operates with the process to the greatest extent possible”.
The tribunal gave a 25% discount to Keam’s contribution towards the Standards Committee’s costs.
Keam also had to reimburse the New Zealand Law Society for the tribunal’s costs.
Keam didn’t want to comment when approached by NZME today.
Hannah Bartlett is a Tauranga-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She previously covered court and local government for the Nelson Mail, and before that was a radio reporter at Newstalk ZB.