Tennet v Wellington Standards Committee 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2023-485-000308

[2023] NZHC 1932

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER TENNET

Appellant

AND

WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2

Respondent

Hearing:

7 July 2023

Counsel:

W C Pyke for Appellant

M Mortimer-Wang for Respondent

Judgment:

21 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

[1]    Mr Tennet is a well known Wellington criminal defence barrister. He has practised law for over 40 years.

[2]    On 26 October 2022 Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) found a charge of misconduct proved against him.1 On 17 May 2023, the Tribunal suspended Mr Tennet from practice as a lawyer for 12 months.2 The Tribunal ordered that the suspension was to begin on 22 June 2023. The Tribunal also ordered a period of supervision upon his return to practice, and that Mr Tennet was to:3

1      Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Tennet [2022] NZLCDT 37 [Liability Decision]. As noted later, the charge had two discrete aspects.

2      Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Tennet [2023] NZLCDT 20 [Penalty Decision].

3      Penalty Decision, above n 2, at [26].

TENNET v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2023] NZHC 1932 [21 July 2023]

(a)attend courses on ethics, professional behaviour and self management;

(b)undergo counselling;

(c)pay costs of $40,798.40; and

(d)pay the Tribunal costs of $12,182 by way of reimbursement to the Law Society.

[3]    Mr Tennet accepts the Tribunal’s liability findings but has appealed the penalty, saying he should not be suspended at all. He applied for a stay of the suspension order, pending that appeal.

[4]    Although the Standards Committee was prepared to consent to a stay on an “interim interim” basis (until the stay application could be heard) the Committee firmly opposed any extension of the stay until the penalty appeal hearing, which was initially scheduled for 25 September 2023.

The liability decision

[5]    The Tribunal found Mr Tennet guilty of two instances of misconduct arising from a single charge. He rendered an invoice for $3,450 to a vulnerable client for a private assessment report relevant to sentencing, when the true cost was only $1,200. Then he destroyed the report, without giving it to her.

[6]    Mr Tennet had accepted that the conduct relating to the invoice was “unsatisfactory”, but the Tribunal went further. It found that falsifying the invoice (and then actively trying to solicit payment) would “reasonably be regarded by lawyers of good standing as disgraceful or dishonourable”.4 It breached the obligation to treat a client with respect and courtesy, and the duty of trust and confidence he owed to her. The Tribunal said the conduct “eats at the fundamental relationship of trust that a client should be able to expect”.5

4      Liability Decision, above n 1, at [42].

5      Liability Decision, above n 1, at [44].

[7]    The Tribunal also found that deleting the report (and failing to alert his former client and her new lawyer to it) “were breaches of his duties and the rules in all respects as we have found…