NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v BURTON CA700/2014 [2014] NZCA 621
Because the respondent pleaded guilty to serious offences of obtaining by deception involving a significant misappropriation of $105,776 and a gross breach of trust, he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll and his name must be struck off to protect the administration of justice and the public.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 621
- Parties
- Applicant: New Zealand Law Society; Respondent: Shane Peter Burton
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 17 December 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Strike Off Application Under S 266 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / Court of Appeal Determination on Papers Pursuant to S 267 After High Court Reserved Decision
- Outcome
- Respondent struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors
- Legal Topics
- Striking Off, Obtaining by Deception, Fit and Proper Person, Disciplinary Procedure, Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 S 266, Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 S 267
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
New Zealand Law Society
Applicant
Shane Peter Burton
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Strike Off Application Under S 266 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / Court of Appeal Determination on Papers Pursuant to S 267 After High Court Reserved Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent should be struck off the roll under s 266 following convictions for obtaining by deception
- 2 Whether Part 7 disciplinary procedures were available or suitable given respondent did not hold a practising certificate at the time of the conduct
- 3 Whether striking off was necessary to maintain standards of the profession and protect the public
Ratio Decidendi
Because the respondent pleaded guilty to serious offences of obtaining by deception involving a significant misappropriation of $105,776 and a gross breach of trust, he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll and his name must be struck off to protect the administration of justice and the public.
Court Disposition
Respondent struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors
Orders
- Respondent's name struck off the roll pursuant to s 266 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
- No order for costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v BURTON CA700/2014 [2014] NZCA 621 [17 December 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA700/2014[2014] NZCA 621BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETYApplicantAND SHANE PETER BURTONRespondentCourt: Randerson, Harrison and Stevens JJCounsel: Z R Johnston for ApplicantNo appearance for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)17 December 2014 at 2:30 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for an order pursuant to s 266 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 that the name of Shane Peter Burton 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)[1] On 24 February 2014 the New Zealand Law Society applied 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 for the application were:(a) The respondent had pleaded guilty to a number of charges of obtaining by deception under ss 240 and 241 of the Crimes Act 1961, being offences punishable by imprisonment.(b) By reason of the convictions, the respondent 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 procedures in Part 7 of the Act were unsuitable.[3] By way of brief background, the respondent was admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court on 11 October 2002. He last held a practising certificate in 2005. Between August 2011 and February 2012 the respondent worked as a recruitment consultant. In that capacity, he created false invoices for payments to be made into his own personal bank account rather than the company he worked for. In doing so, he fraudulently obtained a benefit of $105,776.[4] On 19 November 2012, the respondent was sentenced in the District Court to six months home detention and ordered to pay reparation.1The decision in the High Court[5] The application came before Moore J as a formal proof. The Judge was satisfied that:2(a) The respondent had received notice of the application.(b) The disciplinary procedures available in Part 7 of the Act were not available because the respondent did not hold a current practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor at the time of the relevant conduct.1 New Zealand Police v Burton DC Auckland, CRI-2012-085-1938, 19 November 2012.2 The New Zealand Law Society v Burton [2014] NZHC 2737.(c) Given the gravity of the offending and gross breach of trust involved, it was appropriate to make an order striking therespondent's name off the roll.Process[6] Where the High Court is of the opinion that an 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. 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.[7] 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. The respondent has informed the Registrar of this Court by email of 5 December 2014 that he is content for the application to be determined on the papers and will not be contesting the application. The applicant similarly agrees that the matter may be determined on the papers.Decision[8] 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.[9] 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 Applicant