NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v CAMP CA701/2014 [2015] NZCA 15

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v CAMP CA701/2014 [2015] NZCA 15 [17 February 2015]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA701/2014[2015] NZCA 15BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETYApplicantAND NOVA LORRAINE CAMPRespondentHearing: 9 February 2015Court: Ellen France P, Randerson and White JJCounsel: Z R Johnston for ApplicantNo appearance for RespondentJudgment: 17 February 2015 at 3:00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for an order pursuant to s 266 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 that the name of Nova Lorraine Camp be struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors is granted.B There is no order for costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Randerson J)Introduction[1] The applicant, the New Zealand Law Society, applied to the High Court under s 266 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) for an order that the name of the respondent be struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors.[2] The grounds of the application were:(a) The respondent is an enrolled lawyer who, in February 2013, pleaded guilty to three charges of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage. She was sentenced to seven and a half months home detention and 200 hours of community work.(b) She was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of barristers and solicitors.(c) The order was necessary to maintain proper standards of the legal profession, protect the administration of justice and protect the public.(d) The professional disciplinary procedure set out in Pt 7 of the Act was unsuitable as there was no jurisdiction to consider therespondent's conduct at a time when she no longer held acurrent practising certificate.[3] By way of brief background, the respondent was admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court on 29 January 1999. She last held a practising certificate in 2004. The offending from which her convictions arose occurred in 2011 and 2012. The respondent was the treasurer of a sports club. The three charges to which she pleaded guilty were representative and involved multiple cheque fraud transactions involving in excess of 100 cheques presented over a sustained period, totalling an amount just over $40,000.The decision in the High Court[4] The respondent did not take any steps in the High Court and the application came before Moore J as a formal proof. The Judge was satisfied that:1(a) The respondent had received notice of the application.(b) The disciplinary procedures available in Pt 7 of the Act were not available because the respondent did not hold a current1 New Zealand Law Society v Camp [2014] NZHC 2738.practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor at the time of the relevant conduct.(c) Given the gravity of the offending and the serious breach of trust involved, there was a proper case to strike therespondent's name off the roll.Process[5] As we recently held in another case on very similar facts, where the High Court is of the opinion that the application to strike off ought to be granted, the case must be reserved for the consideration of this Court in terms of s 267(1)(b) of the Act.2 Accordingly, the High Court made an order in terms of that provision on 4 November 2014. All the relevant materials from the High Court have been sent to this Court as required by s 267(2) of the Act.[6] In such a case, this Court must, as soon as practicable, consider the application and grant or dismiss it in terms of s 267(3) of the Act. We are satisfied that the respondent has been served with documents relevant to the application and that she was made aware of the date of hearing in this Court. The respondent has taken no steps and did not appear when the case was called on 9 February 2015.Decision[7] We have considered the application and the supporting affidavit. We agree with the Judge, for the reasons he gave, that it is appropriate to make an orderstriking off the respondent's name from the roll of barristers and solicitors. We orderaccordingly.[8] We make no order as to costs, noting that an order for costs was made in favour of the applicant in the High Court.Solicitors:Meredith Connell, Auckland for Applicant2 New Zealand Law Society v Burton [2014] NZCA 621.