You are not permitted to download, save or email this image. Visit image gallery to purchase the image.
Earlier this month, the institute's appeals council dismissed an appeal relating to penalty, costs and name publication. There was no appeal against the findings of guilt.
In a decision dated November 8 last year, the institute's disciplinary tribunal found McPhedran guilty of professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming an accountant, negligence and breaching the institute's code of ethics.
He had previously pleaded guilty to the breach of the code of ethics. The charges arose from complaints by former clients around the Your Business Team business that he co-owned, and an advisory and mentoring business that traded as 10X.
The tribunal found McPhedran was "hopelessly conflicted". He furthered his own interests at the expense of two clients, taking advantage of them when they were vulnerable, and was deceitful in some of his dealings with them.
In its decision, the appeals council said both of McPhedran's clients came to him seeking objective, independent and professional advice. Both of them ended up "losing their businesses altogether".
As well as his name being removed from the register of members, McPhedran was ordered to pay costs of $70,000.
The institute sought publication of its decision on the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand's website, in Acuity magazine and in the Otago Daily Times with mention of his name and location.
The names of the companies in which his entities became involved were initially suppressed, but suppression was later lifted to reveal they were Murray and Elizabeth Bell, of Whitestone Post in Oamaru, and Graham Roper, of Dunedin, from New Zealand Safety Brokers.
Mr McPhedran has lodged papers in the High Court in Wellington seeking a judicial review of the disciplinary processes employed against him by the NZ Institute of Chartered Accountants.
Michael Laws, who is representing Mr McPhedran, said his client sought that a judicial review consider previous accounting industry disciplinary tribunal and appeals council decisions "that effectively stopped Mr McPhedran from being able to properly defend himself against two complainants".