Judge scathing about lawyer's fraud

Valda Hoare (left) was a victim of disgraced lawyer David Watt (bottom right), who took money from the estate of her husband Leonard (top right). Picture / Amos Chapple

The actions of an Auckland lawyer who was found guilty yesterday of defrauding a deceased person's estate would have "absolutely horrified" the dead man, his 83-year-old widow says.

Valda Hoare recalls her husband, school headmaster Leonard, as a man of "great principles and high ideals" who would have been horrified by David Watt's morals.

"You expect to look up to lawyers, and you expect them to look after you."

Mrs Hoare, 12 years a widow, was "relieved" yesterday to hear that Watt had been found guilty of defrauding her husband's estate, in which she has a life interest.

He charged $185,000 to administer the $350,000 estate, spending $30,000 of that on advice from other lawyers.

Auckland District Court Judge Roderick Joyce, QC, hearing the case without a jury, found the solicitor guilty of converting money belonging to Mr Hoare's estate to a use not authorised by the trust, with intent to defraud and in violation of trust.

Judge Joyce ordered reparation and victim reports and said that Watt would have to "re-organise his life" in the wake of the verdict. He is free on bail until sentencing on March 17.

One of Mr Hoare's five sons from his first marriage, Greg Hall, 52, described Watt, aged in his early 50s, as a "defiant scoundrel. Now he has to take his medicine. We have had to".

The family fought for justice for eight years, he said, spending "five figures" on legal fees.

"It was our duty to uphold [Mr Hoare's] honour and follow through."

He was grateful that police eventually took up the case, and praised the work of police forensic accountants.

Defence lawyer Paul Davison, QC, portrayed Watt as painstaking and meticulous in his dealings with the estate, especially as Mr Hoare's sons - Murray, Greg, Stephen, Darren and Brendan - constantly challenged him.

Judge Joyce did not agree.

"On all too many occasions Mr Watt was recording time well beyond what he actually spent," he said in his 78-page decision. "Even his 'turn over every issue and item, time after time' approach cannot possibly have matched the astonishing amounts of time so often recorded."

Judge Joyce observed: "Mr Watt simply could not resist such conscious fabrications as would make for more and more fees; this when all the while laying out around him the appearance of justification."

Many of Watt's notes and minutes were "self-serving concoctions".

Judge Joyce said Watt was entitled to seek legal advice but added: "Virtually every time he got such assistance he made an absurd meal of it by supposedly - and it often seemed endlessly - mulling over and dissecting it.

"And time and again, this man, who claimed that he was intent upon following the advice he got, went every which way to avoid it."

The judge said that Watt consciously created an impression of conscientiousness.

"He descended to levels of artfulness which included endeavours to create a paper picture of a legitimate entitlement to do as he did.

"But these became so mechanical and habitual - not to mention divorced from realities of which Mr Watt was well aware - so predictably repetitive, as to sound as empty as he must have known them to have become."

Mrs Hoare said her first impressions of Watt, the sole trustee of her husband's estate, had been that "he was quite a charming person".

The realisation that something was wrong felt "terrible, absolutely terrible" and the ensuing legal drama "a big strain".

Mrs Hoare, who lives in Hamilton and has three daughters from her first marriage, celebrated the verdict with a glass of wine.

She says she hasn't lost her faith in human nature. "I hope I never do that. And I haven't lost my faith in all lawyers - just one of them."


Costs and complaints

The cost to administer an estate For a very simple estate, lawyers' costs could be under $1000, but a very complex case could reach up to $50,000. It depends on the expertise of the lawyer, the client's assets and how well they had managed their affairs and other complications.

If you are wronged by a lawyer

* Take the case to your district law society, which will investigate it.

* If serious enough, it will lay a charge against the lawyer with the district disciplinary tribunal or the NZ Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.

* The tribunals can censure, fine or restrict the practice of a lawyer. The New Zealand tribunal can disbar a lawyer.

* If unhappy with the district law society's handling of your complaint you can write to the Lay Observer, a Government-appointed non-lawyer, who will examine your allegations.