It found that of two charges of misconduct laid by the committee, one was established while the other was not. It also found some of the events relied on by the Standards Committee to establish the proven charge had not been established.
According to the tribunal’s findings, Tingey was involved in a long-standing covert affair with a colleague. There was no power imbalance between the pair and the relationship broke down and resumed on multiple occasions. The woman’s identity is suppressed.
While working at the firm’s offices during one weekend in 2009, the woman revealed she was going on a date with another man. At the time, the woman and Tingey had temporarily ended their relationship.
The tribunal found a “jealous and distressed” Tingey temporarily blocked the woman from exiting her office. He then followed her to her car and sat in the passenger seat.
He behaved in a “demanding and controlling manner” and remained in the car after being repeatedly asked to leave.
A separate incident occurred in November of the same year when the relationship was still on ice.
After a conference, Tingey asked the woman if he could accompany her home. She declined.
Tingey then showed up at her door “in a highly intoxicated state”, banging and asking to be allowed in. The woman again refused him entry, but he “applied force to the door” and entered anyway.
He grabbed the woman’s phone from her and blocked the hallway. The woman ran upstairs to her bedroom as Tingey followed. He pulled her down on to the bed next to him.
Neighbours heard the disturbance and phoned police, who later removed Tingey.
The tribunal found this incident was the worst behaviour by Tingey and ought to be the subject of a disciplinary response, and Tingey accepted this.
The pair’s relationship resumed shortly afterwards, but it ended for the final time in April 2011.
In another incident in May or early June 2011, Tingey urgently wanted to speak to the woman about a case. He travelled to her home without invitation and attempted to enter, but the woman didn’t let him in.
He then went to the back of the property, attempting to enter via a back door. Refused entry again, he became angry and aggressive.
In an agitated state, he remained outside the property for “some time”. He persisted in his attempts to enter until he discovered another male at the property.
Details of some allegations that were not established are subject to an interim suppression order.
Law Society seeking suspension
Grant Illingworth, KC, representing Tingey, said his client was a different man from the one who behaved as he did more than a decade ago. He is a respected lawyer with a strong professional character, Illingworth said.
“The proven misconduct in this case is historic. There is no serious likelihood of any repetition of that conduct in the future. There is no need for public protection, and the maintenance of confidence in the profession is not threatened by conduct that occurred nearly 14 years ago.”
He said a period of suspension would not achieve the purposes of the tribunal’s penalty function.
“A substantial fine, a censure and costs are all going to add up to a very serious response, which is adequate in the circumstances of this case.”
He said unfair media coverage of the case led to his client losing a substantial amount of business.
Acting for the Standards Committee, Maria Dew, KC, said a period of suspension between six and nine months was appropriate.
She stressed the tribunal’s purpose was not punitive, but was to uphold public confidence in the profession and deter inappropriate conduct.
“A censure and fine would not appropriately mark out the seriousness of the conduct,” she said.
The tribunal reserved its decision.
Ethan Griffiths covers crime and justice stories nationwide for Open Justice. He joined NZME in 2020, previously working as a regional reporter in Whanganui and South Taranaki.
