Lawyer who ignored vulnerable clients barred from practising for two years

A lawyer who failed to communicate with three clients adequately has been suspended for two years. Photo / NZME

An immigration lawyer who told vulnerable clients she had filed their visa applications to stay in New Zealand instead abandoned them, with one later discovering her application was never filed.

Raminderjit Kaur Dhillon, a young practitioner who left the law in 2019, has been suspended from practice for two years after the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found her guilty of misconduct.

But Dhillon left for Australia in 2019 and did not engage with the disciplinary process.

In 2015, Dhillon began working at a small barristers’ chambers, initially part-time. It’s understood she was admitted to the bar in 2014.

The tribunal’s decision said she had an interest in immigration law, but her boss indicated he didn’t have experience in this field and arranged another local lawyer to assist in supervising Dhillon.

However, that supervision largely didn’t occur. Dhillon became busy with the immigration work, which the tribunal said she “didn’t seem to seek assistance” with.

Some of her clients were based in Auckland and Dhillon’s employer was based in an unnamed nearby city.

She worked in serviced office spaces in Auckland but continued to answer the phone and issue invoices under the name of the business she worked for.

“That would appear to be the extent of the chambers’ involvement in relation to Ms Dhillon’s immigration work,” the tribunal’s chairperson, Dale Clarkson, wrote in the decision.

The three complainants approached Dhillon in May or June 2018 for immigration assistance. All three clients, overstayers, were advised to make an application for a special visa.

One complainant was told by Dhillon she had lodged her application in June 2018.

The client sent numerous emails and text messages to Dhillon inquiring about the status of the application.

In March the following year, Dhillon told the client the authorities said the application would be considered within 30 days.

But the application was never filed, the decision noted.

The client inquired with Immigration New Zealand who told her there was no application under her name. Dhillon later filed the application but only after the client complained to the tribunal.

All three clients who made complaints about an immigration lawyer were overstayers. Image / 123rf

Another complainant was told his visa request was filed in June 2018, but after requesting further information later in January 2019, Dhillon said there was a problem. He later engaged another lawyer.

A third complainant was told his application had been submitted in June 2018, but Dhillon didn’t follow up on the application for another nine months.

The client repeatedly contacted Dhillon, without a proper response.

“The communications between Ms Dhillon and her clients do not make happy reading,” the decision said.

“These are clearly people in desperate need of answers, pleading with her and receiving no satisfactory response.”

One application lodged by Dhillon included inaccurate information, where she had included details of the applicant’s deceased father’s income.

Responding to the complaints, Dhillon acknowledged she had “failed to proactively ensure the clients’ files were delivered to Immigration New Zealand and failed to actively monitor the outcomes of the lodgements”.

For all three complaints, she blamed difficulties with courier services from her Auckland office.

The tribunal also found Dhillon appeared to have had poor practices in keeping client information.

In early 2019 when she told her employer she was leaving for a new job in Australia, she assured him all immigration matters were completed.

“After her departure, Mr X, the employer, received complaints from the clients who were seeking [the] return of their documents including two passports and also educational certificates.”

Mr X, as he was identified in the decision, eventually found 55 documents, “far fewer than would be expected in a series of immigration files”.

The employer had since, from his own pocket, reimbursed the clients affected.

“In her correspondence with the Standards Committee, Ms Dhillon apologises to the clients and acknowledges some of her shortcomings,” the tribunal noted.

“However, we consider the level of insight into her failures is somewhat limited.”

The Standards Committee had some communication with Dhillon but, while satisfied she was formally served, she “disengaged from the process” and did not participate in the February hearing.

The decision states she has been living in Australia since 2019. The Herald was unable to locate Dhillon to put questions to her.

The tribunal found her misconduct was established but, when it came to the imposition of a penalty, it recognised her age and inexperience meant responsibility shouldn’t “fall entirely at her feet”.

The tribunal barred her from practising for two years and ordered her to pay $37,854 in costs.

Speaking generally, Auckland immigration lawyer Harris Gu told the Herald cases involving overstayers were common and clients needed as much legal support as they could get.

Gu said immigration decisions were discretionary and relied on a strong case being put forward.

“Immigration clients, particularly overstayers, are particularly vulnerable. After 42 days, they’re open to deportation. That means Immigration New Zealand can come knocking at their door,” Gu said.

“The first thing we tell clients is there is no guarantee of success - it’s at the absolute direction [of the tribunal]. What we do promise is we will do our best to get you a visa.”

He said that immigration clients often have a very loose grasp on the law themselves, meaning it is important for lawyers to be particularly diligent.