A lawyer has been fined for "judge-shopping" to avoid a particular judge hearing his case, as well as sending a picture of a monkey with his request to police prosecutions.
A recently released decision by the Legal Complaints Review office said the lawyer, referred to as Mr DH, was actingfor a client in a criminal matter when he sent an email to the police prosecutor, known as Ms EJ.
The email said Mr DH's client was going to plead guilty to charges and he wanted the sentencing date brought forward - preferably when a certain judge was not sitting. A picture of a monkey was attached to the email.
Ms EJ forwarded the email to the New Zealand Law Society with her concern that Mr DH was appeared to be "judge-shopping" and was unprofessional in attaching the image, the decision said.
Mr DH said he did not mean to infer that the judge was a monkey and he had often sent pictures to Ms EJ's predecessor in order to bring some "levity" to their work.
He also denied "judge-shopping" and said he was only acting on instructions from his client.
The complaint was investigated by the Standards Committee, which found Mr DH had attempted to shop around for a judge and was unprofessional in attaching the picture.
It censured him and ordered him to pay a $2000 fine and $500 in costs.
Mr DH asked for a review of the penalty from the Legal Complaints Review office.
Review officer Dorothy Thresher said Mr DH accepted that on reflection, he could have attached a different picture "that could not have been misconstrued".
"Mr DH emphasises his view that the picture was intended to be a 'cheeky humorous token', and says the penalties imposed are manifestly excessive."
But his actions in attempting to request a particular hearing date when a specific judge was not sitting would not help "maintain public confidence ... because it served to undermine the legal system within which Mr DH was providing legal services", Ms Thresher said.
Sending a picture of a monkey was taking "a risk that did not pay off and was completely unnecessary", she said.
The penalty of censure and a $2000 fine was upheld and Mr DH was also ordered to pay costs of $1200.
