Lawyer censured after appearing in court while drunk

An experienced lawyer who turned up to court "late, somewhat dishevelled and unsteady on her feet" was intoxicated and has been censured.

It comes on top of an "awful" track record of disciplinary matters.

When the lawyer appeared in a list of "short judicial conferences" in a dishevelled state, the judge asked another lawyer to speak with her.

The practitioner confirmed to her colleague that she was intoxicated.

In the recent Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal decision, the tribunal said it was "trite to point out that this conduct in any legal practitioner is totally unacceptable".

"It puts sound representation of clients at risk; it is disrespectful towards the court; and it undoubtedly diminishes the reputation of the profession in the eyes of the public."

The tribunal also acknowledged the lawyer's conduct arose "from an illness which must be managed by the practitioner".

The decision said that after the judge intervened, the lawyer who spoke with the intoxicated lawyer, referred to as Ms K, offered support, and Ms K then "immediately talked to her new employer, whose firm she was about to join".

"Together, they formulated a plan of immediate intervention, with medical and therapeutic support."

Since then, the lawyer has been attending Alcoholics Anonymous, has been through a managed detox programme, and has had therapy.

However, before the disciplinary hearing she'd relapsed, and now accepted she had to be totally abstinent.

She understood this would require the support of ongoing therapy, with which she had re-engaged.

Her employer answered questions from the tribunal and "impressed as energetically involved and willing to assume responsibility for the safe alcohol free practice of [the lawyer]".

However, the tribunal also looked at the lawyer's disciplinary history, which was of "serious concern".

"We questioned her about whether the previous negative findings against her were connected with her alcoholism," the decision said.

"While accepting that her disciplinary history was, in her own words, 'awful', she did not consider it was connected with alcohol abuse.

"Certainly, procrastination and unwillingness to face up to problems appear to have been her pattern and Ms K undertook to explore these issues with her therapist."

The tribunal found it mitigating that she'd immediately dealt with the issue, and was honest with her colleague about her intoxication.

She'd followed through on the plan set out for her, with help from health professionals.

It was significant that she worked for an "extremely supportive" firm, having previously been "isolated and lonely" as a sole practitioner.

"Both she and her employer are confident that her new environment will ensure that there is no repetition of the events that led to this charge," the decision said.

"Her employer assures us that she is an experienced and competent practitioner who has much to offer the junior staff who she now supervises."

In considering whether to make the lawyer's name public, the tribunal heard evidence from her therapist as to the impact of publication.

The impact of shame on the lawyer had already been "considerable" and wider knowledge would "cut across the therapeutic process and her recovery".

The therapist noted the "significant action" which had already been taken by the lawyer, and the degree of "personal and professional reflection, and commitment to change".

The tribunal agreed with him that she had also shown remorse.

The tribunal considered there were sufficient protections in place - random breath testing, the therapeutic support network set up by the lawyer and her oversight and positive support in the workplace.

This was considered important if members of the public were to be "deprived of knowledge of [the lawyer's] identity".

The safeguards "tipped the balance" in favour of permanent suppression orders and the lawyer's privacy and recovery, which was in line with the "rehabilitative approach adopted by the Standards Committee and endorsed by us".

She would be responsible for the cost of random breath alcohol testing she had undertaken to have.

The tribunal censured her, stating that when she entered a courtroom while affected by alcohol she let the court, her clients, herself and her profession down.

"Despite a long career, in which we understand you have helped many clients, your disciplinary history does you no credit. For this conduct of being intoxicated in court you are formally censured."

The tribunal ordered that the lawyer was not to practise on her own account unless authorised to do so by the tribunal.

She would undergo 12 months of mentoring and supervision, as well as 12 months' alcohol counselling.

The lawyer was ordered to pay $10,752 in costs - $4900 in costs to the Standards Committee and reimbursing the New Zealand Law Society $5852 for tribunal costs.

* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.