A senior lawyer's treatment of her junior staff, including her attitude to sick leave, has been described as "appalling" by a disciplinary tribunal.

Her management was such that five of her juniors quit on the same day after being required to work long hours, complete tasks outside their level of experience, and being subjected to criticism and questioning when they took sick leave.

The lawyer, whose name is suppressed and was referred to as Ms A, faced a disciplinary hearing held in several parts by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, where evidence was heard about who ran the firm, and whether the manner in which it was operated adversely affected clients and staff members.

In the recently published liability decision, the tribunal panel found her guilty of misconduct on two charges and unsatisfactory conduct on one. She had already pleaded guilty to misconduct on a fourth charge.

The first charge related to the management of the firm.

The tribunal panel found the Law Society had issued her a practising certificate "conditionally", after concerns were raised about her ability to practise on her own.

The concerns related to financial management of a firm.

The implied undertakings were that she would practise as an employed solicitor, having arranged for a lawyer who was authorised to practise on their own account to step into the role of sole principal director of the firm.

However, the tribunal panel found she had held herself out as the principal and continued to run "her" firm with minimum oversight or influence by the various directors.

The tribunal found she was "almost entirely responsible for employment of legal staff" and was "fully responsible for their training, to the extent that it existed, for supervision of all legal work, for decisions about what work was accepted and promoted, for decisions about charging practices, and for setting the workplace culture".

In conducting herself in this manner, the tribunal found she breached her implied undertakings to the Law Society to be an employee of the firm, and this amounted to misconduct.

High workload, unrealistic expectations 

The next charge related to the lawyer's supervision of staff. The practitioner's lawyer, Karen Feint, KC, suggested there was a risk of "groupthink" from the juniors' evidence - albeit not collusion - but the tribunal found the juniors' "concerns about the manner in which this firm operated arose entirely independently of each other".

"For example, two of the employees had independently contacted the Friends Panel at the New Zealand Law Society to seek advice about the manner in which they were being asked to work," the tribunal found.

"They were not only concerned about their personal wellbeing but, more importantly, were genuinely concerned about the level of their inexperience in relation to what tasks were expected of them."

Seven former employees gave evidence that the practitioner spent most of her time out of the office, either working overseas or in other parts of New Zealand, where she would attend hearings and meet with clients.

One junior lawyer said he saw his boss "a few days a month" and that communication by audio notes did not allow him to ask questions.

The tribunal found the lawyer "adopted whatever technology was available at the time to work remotely but the evidence is clear that there was very little face-to-face contact between her and her junior lawyers".

Initially, staff meetings were "haphazard", and while regular meetings developed, they were often conducted by the junior lawyers who organised their work among themselves and attempted to support each other as best they could.

"This was quite difficult for them because of their lack of experience but also because they were expected to record seven and a half hours [billable] time per day," the decision said.

"Although some small proportion of that could be allocated to continuing education, it is clear that these juniors were under huge pressure to complete chargeable hours at a level which, at their stage, was simply unrealistic and very daunting."

There were "bottlenecks" because the senior lawyer needed to check all the juniors' work - much of which appeared last minute - leading to the need for work outside normal office hours and missed deadlines.

The junior lawyers were often required to work after hours, and a weekend roster was established.

"Though the witnesses acknowledge that their contracts provided for time off in lieu of weekend work, they indicated that professional obligations to clients and the high workload meant that it was often impossible to take this time," the tribunal found.

When one junior complained about the roster and said the hours worked would mean they would be paid less than the minimum wage, the practitioner took offence and said if they didn't want to work the overtime, they could resign.

Five juniors did so that day.

Lawyer suggests junior's high fever was 'psychosomatic'

The tribunal panel also found the lawyer's attitude to staff sickness was concerning.

One said that "Ms A told us we did not need to take sick days because it was not a physical job. She said that she did not take sick days."

Another told the tribunal there had been an occasion where she told the lawyer she didn't want to come into work and make her colleagues sick, but Ms A responded that "[the firm] staff did not work from home and that adequate handwashing was enough to deter infection".

The junior said the lawyer had told her she would have to take leave without pay as she did not have sick leave entitlements at that point.

Another junior said that in October 2019, she came down with a high fever and was unable to work.

The lawyer's response implied it was unacceptable that she was sick during this time.

"She called my symptoms 'psychosomatic' and that I needed to think about my fit at the firm. In response, I offered to work later hours, or a weekend," the junior said.

The tribunal found there had been Skype messages that occasionally demonstrated her commending employees.

"But overall, the witnesses called for the Standards Committee appeared fearful of Ms A, or of getting on the 'wrong side' of her."

Overall, the tribunal found her conduct did constitute misconduct.

"There is no doubt that Ms A is a committed and hard-working practitioner. However, her treatment of her junior staff at that time was at times appalling."

They found the director of the firm, who failed to adequately supervise Ms A and the lawyers, guilty of unsatisfactory conduct.

On another charge, related to client services, the tribunal found that while "sound advice" had been given to Family Court clients seeking access to a child, it had been conveyed in a very "piecemeal fashion".

The senior lawyer had, however, refused to speak with the clients directly, insisting they speak to juniors.

"It is egregious conduct for a senior lawyer with such a high turnover of juniors to refuse to engage with clients directly, because she was 'too busy'.

"She should have known that the lack of personal relationship and continuity was difficult for her clients and stepped up herself," the tribunal panel found, acknowledging that the lawyer had, in the end, tried to assist the clients to find another lawyer.

"We make a finding of unsatisfactory conduct on this charge, as 'unprofessional'."

The penalty hearing will take place next week.