Amid family law proceedings in an Australian courtroom, the conduct of a New Zealand lawyer – known only as Mr K – was deemed inappropriate, with the Wellington Standards Committee at times finding him to be petulant, deplorable, pugnacious and rude.

Mr K was a party in a long-running and inflamed custody proceeding concerning his wife and a child she claimed was the result of rape, although the allegation was rejected by a New Zealand court.

The father, an Australian man, was also accused of withholding information from the court, but the way in which Mr K sought to prove this was not appropriate under Australian law requirements.

Although the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal agreed the behaviour was confrontational and some remarks were “toxic”, it acknowledged Mr K was “passionate, feeling hurt, and idiosyncratic in relation to his Australian case”.

For example, when the Australian judge refused to progress with an application, Mr K accused her of not “doing her duty”.

He also refused to pay a costs order because he was “not under the jurisdiction of the Australian court” and would not pay anything until a New Zealand court “tells me to pay those costs”.

When he suggested he was “forced to participate in these proceedings”, the judge pointed out Mr K was the matter’s instigator.

While the costs point was technically correct, the tribunal said his attitude on this point was “pugnacious and rude”.

VIEW ALL

“While it is not this tribunal’s role to protect the dignity of courts outside New Zealand, we acknowledge that Mr K’s confrontational behaviour could have reflected poorly on the reputation of New Zealand lawyers if the New Zealand public were to consider that such an attitude was held by New Zealand lawyers generally.

“However, it is unlikely that any such inference would be drawn,” the tribunal said.

Although the “combative and emotive stance” taken by Mr K in the Australian courtrooms was accounted for, the tribunal said it could not conclude Mr K was not a fit and proper person to engage in practice as a New Zealand lawyer given the circumstances.

“Taking account of Mr K’s passion, his sense of isolation as a litigant in person, and his fervent feelings that he had been wronged by the lower court, these expressions do not rise to a level that would justify that he is not fit and proper to be a lawyer,” the tribunal said.

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.