The committee was not confident he would meet ongoing tax obligations or that his proposed business model was "viable".
"It felt that you have a completely unrealistic view of the challenges you would face getting work, the costs of providing an adequate level of service to clients, and your ability to properly provide to your clients the Client Care required by law."
Despite questions over his expertise in criminal work, the man planned to restrict his work to defending drink driving charges without having an established source of actual or potential clients.
"The only information you could provide to establish that there is currently demand for such defences either in Auckland or in the provinces is that a practitioner currently advertises such services on the North Shore.
"Your client base is proposed to come solely from clients who answer newspaper advertisements, being drink driving defendants who wish to defend the charge on the basis that the prosecution may make a mistake in proving elements of the charge."
There were also concerns about "an overall lack of privacy" in relation to clients' affairs.
"Your flat which is shared with your son will also be your office.
"You will meet clients and discuss their confidential affairs in public places such as cafes.
"You intend to use the computer and/or Wi-Fi facilities of public libraries for communications affecting your clients."
Based on the man's proposed business model, the committee estimated he would earn just $22,500 plus GST in the first year.
Despite using loans from family members to "overcome your lack of capital", the man was likely to incur debts he could not repay.
He did not plan to own a scanner in order to email documents to the court.
"Your proposal that the documents be scanned at the public library does not recognise or give effect to clients' right to have such information kept confidential."
There were also questions over the man's basic understanding of accounting, required to assess whether his proposed business was solvent or profitable.
Appealing against the committee's decision, the man's QC lawyer accused the Law Society of "legal snobbery".
The man had subsequently been granted approval to practise as a barrister under a senior colleague's supervision in January this year.
He was already working three days a week in the criminal law area, building a client base and was entitled to "start small".
"M" had now been discharged from bankruptcy and was entitled to a "clean slate". He had also acquired considerable budgeting skills "and is motivated to avoid a repeat of insolvency".
The tribunal upheld the man's appeal, finding he was a fit and proper person with the required skills to practise on his own.
This was based on his experience, lack of previous disciplinary matters, mentoring support and steps he had taken to bring himself up to date with the law.
A Law Society spokesman said it respected the tribunal's decision.
