“His misconduct in this case appears to be at complete odds with other reported behaviours,” it said.
Tennet said in a text message to the Herald that he couldn’t comment on the decision because “it’s not over”.
The case against Tennet dated back to 2017, when he attempted to get his vulnerable client to pay an invoice of $3450 for a privately obtained drug and alcohol report needed in her upcoming sentencing.
Tennet invoiced the amount to his client when the actual cost would have been $1200, however, such an assessment could be done for free through the courts.
When a report was organised free of charge at a later date for the woman, it was that report writer who complained about Tennet’s conduct.
The invoice was found to be false by the tribunal and an attempt to lever money from the woman, who has permanent name suppression.
The tribunal labelled Tennet’s claim that he had simply invoiced the woman in order to engage her in discussion and never intended her to actually pay the bill as “unconvincing gloss”.
“His misconduct was aggravated because he knew she was vulnerable, impecunious, and had recently been beaten by her partner, a man for whom Mr Tennet had formerly acted,” the decision states.
Tennet also received the third formal censure of his legal career.
In 2021, he was censured and fined $1000 for failing to follow instructions and advance in a timely manner a proceeding for a serving prisoner. The same year he was fined $2000 for harassing correspondence with Department of Corrections staff.
Then in 2022, he was censured again, and fined $3000 for personal attacks on an employee of Legal Aid Services.
“We find that, at least in recent years, Mr Tennet, although capable of generous behaviour and showing a kindly face to peers, has acted in ways that are contrary to those that reflect a fit and proper person having the privileges of being a lawyer,” the tribunal’s decision goes on to say.
“Those on whom his antipathy or neglect have fallen can be described as persons he might regard as his inferiors.
“In short, we find his misconduct in the present case was self-indulgent pique. He was annoyed with his client and failed to regulate his responses.”
In censuring Tennet, suspending him for 12 months and ordering him to pay $50,000 in legal costs the tribunal said it hoped it would act as a deterrent to other practitioners.
