Lawyer for trial over $184,000 to deal with $350,000 estate

A solicitor who charged $184,000 to administer a $350,000 estate has been committed for trial on a charge of criminal breach of trust.

The lawyer, whose interim name suppression was continued until his next hearing next month, was the executor and sole trustee of the estate of Lenoard Hoare, who died in 1994 leaving his wife Velda a life interest in his main asset, a property in Piha.

His five sons from an earlier marriage were to inherit whatever was left when she died.

The solicitor's fees included payments to other lawyers of around $32,000 for advice on dealing with the estate.

The Crown says that the fees should have been a mere fraction of what the solicitor charged.

Prosecutor Mike Heron told the JPs Barry Evans and Robin Wray in the Auckland District Court: "The informant's case is that [the solicitor] converted the funds of the trust to himself, dishonestly and in violation of the trust.

"The essence of the case is that [the solicitor] expended the trust funds on his own fees when he knew that was dishonest and in breach of his legal obligations."

The JPs ruled that the lawyer should stand trial.

In his closing address, the solicitor's lawyer, Paul Davison, QC, said that his client was in an invidious position.

He had been warned by Mr Hoare before his death to expect trouble from his sons.

Much of the costs related to extra work having to be done by the solicitor and advice he needed from other lawyers because of the constant criticisms and challenges to his decisions by the sons.

Mr Davison said that the sons were dissatisfied with the terms of the will and the case was fuelled by this sense of grievance and their dissatisfaction at the outcome of a Law Society revision of some of the solicitor's fees.

He said that the lawyer had been advised that costs incurred getting legal advice were properly chargeable to the estate, contrary to the Crown contention.

Mr Davison reminded the JPs of the evidence of barrister Janice Urlich, who ordered a reduction of $8300 from a bill of $43,000, following a Law Society cost revision.

She told the court that the sons were to a large extent "the authors of their own misfortune" by creating a situation that led the solicitor to incur the additional time and cost of himself and other counsel. She said that the solicitor displayed a somewhat laborious attention to detail.

* Mr Davison said that, contrary to a report in the Herald yesterday, forensic accountant Peter Preece did not refer to a particular instance of the solicitor charging an hour's time to read a two-line letter.

He told the JPs that he referred Mr Preece to his 520-page brief of evidence and asked him about an example he gave of the method he employed for comparing physical correspondence with time charged.

He said that Mr Preece had referred in his brief to looking for instances of, for example, where the solicitor had charged an hour's time for reading a two-line letter.
However, it appeared from the questions and answers that Mr Preece believed he was being asked about a specific example of the solicitor doing just that. Mr Davison asked: "You gave the example of a reading of a two-line letter, and the charging of, say, an hour's time in relation to it. Remember that example?"

Mr Preece: "I don't remember this specific example because there appeared to be many instances where the time was far higher than I would have expected."