SKAGEN v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2015] NZHC 2634

SKAGEN v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2015] NZHC 2634 [27 October 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYCIV-2015-485-000061[2015] NZHC 2634UNDER the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER KNUTE SKAGENAppellantAND WELLINGTON STANDARDSCOMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALANDLAW SOCIETYRespondentHearing: 27 October 2015Counsel: Appellant in personT J Mackenzie for RespondentJudgment: 27 October 2015JUDGMENT OF COLLINS JIntroduction[1] This judgment sets out my decisions following an interlocutory hearing inrelation to Mr Skagen's appeal from a decision of the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) delivered on 9 December 2014.[2] In its decision, the Tribunal found Mr Skagen guilty of 11 charges of misconduct pursuant to s 241(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (theAct). The Tribunal ordered the removal of Mr Skagen's name from the Roll ofBarristers and Solicitors of New Zealand and also ordered him to pay $2,533 in costs.Background[3] Mr Skagen practised as an attorney in Oregon. In 2010 he obtained a practising certificate from the New Zealand Law Society (the Law Society). He practised as a barrister in Wellington.[4] In June 2011, the Law Society declined to renew Mr Skagen's practisingcertificate because of issues following from disciplinary proceedings against Mr Skagen in Oregon in 2006. I understand the Oregon Supreme Court had suspended Mr Skagen from practising as an attorney for 12 months and ordered him to pay $8,000 in costs. Those costs had not been paid at the time the Law Societydecided not to renew Mr Skagen's practising certificate.[5] There were three categories of disciplinary charges considered by the Tribunal. They were summarised by the Tribunal in the following way:(1) The "Edmeades Charges":(i) Accepting instructions directly;(ii) Accepting fees in advance;(iii) Failure to pay monies received into a trust account;(iv) Failing to act in a timely or competent manner;(v) Failing to repay monies.(2) The "Wolvetang Charges":(i) Accepting a fee in advance;(ii) Failure to pay money received into a trust account;(iii) Failing to act in a timely or competent manner;(iv) Failing to repay monies, and in the alternative;(v) Charging a grossly excessive fee. (This charge was abandoned at the hearing).(3) The "Investigation Charges":(i) Failing to permit an investigator to examine accounts;(ii) Failing to produce records to an investigator.[6] After the Tribunal found Mr Skagen guilty, it immediately proceeded to the penalty phase of its deliberations and struck Mr Skagen's name from the Roll ofBarristers and Solicitors.[7] Mr Skagen has appealed both the liability and penalty aspects of theTribunal's decision. This Court hears the appeal as a rehearing.1 On hearing an appeal the Court may confirm, reverse or modify the order or decision appealed from.2Interlocutory applicationsSecurity for costs order[8] On 9 April 2015, Williams J ordered Mr Skagen to pay $995 as security for costs. Mr Skagen initially sought to review that decision in this Court. Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction, this issue is no longer relevant because Mr Skagen has paid the security for costs ordered by Williams J.Discovery[9] Mr Skagen has sought discovery. It is highly questionable whether there is any basis for this Court to order discovery in this type of proceeding. On questioning Mr Skagen it became apparent he was particularly interested to see1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 253(3).2 Section 253(4).correspondence between the Law Society and the Oregon State Bar. Thosedocuments may not be relevant to Mr Skagen's appeal but in the unusualcircumstances of this case I urge the Law Society, through Mr Mackenzie, to voluntarily disclose copies of its communications with the State Bar Authorities in Oregon.Further affidavits[10] Mr Skagen has sought leave to file two affidavits, one dated 26 May 2015 and the other dated 21 October 2015.[11] Mr Mackenzie takes no issue with the second affidavit.[12] I have carefully reviewed Mr Skagen's first affidavit. It contains a lot ofmaterial that could be classified as legal submissions. After questioning Mr Skagen, I have concluded Mr Skagen can file an affidavit in substitution for his affidavit of 26 May 2015, which addresses the following two points:(1) First, Mr Skagen's lack of appreciation in July 2011 that the Law Society had not renewed his practising certificate.(2) Second, matters relating to Mr Skagen's state of health at the time ofthe events giving rise to the charges and at the time the Tribunaldecided Mr Skagen's name should be removed from the Roll ofBarristers and Solicitors. The evidence relating to Mr Skagen's stateof health at the relevant times may be important and would be verified by medical reports.Second amended notice of appeal[13] On 21 October 2015, Mr Skagen filed a second amended notice of appeal. No issue is taken with him having done so. I grant Mr Skagen leave to file that amended notice of appeal.Hearing time[14] Mr Mackenzie estimates a half day hearing is required. That is a realistic estimate. The registrar will arrange a half day hearing for this appeal to be heard as promptly as possible.________________________D B Collins JSolicitors:Wynn Williams, Christchurch for Respondent