Lawyer overturns suspension after accusing client’s ex-partner of hacking social media accounts

A Whangārei lawyer who become “over-involved” in a case, falsely accusing a senior government manager of hacking into her client’s online accounts, has overturned her suspension.

In 2021, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found Lynette O’Boyle’s actions amounted to misconduct.

Judge John Adams ordered her suspension for six weeks, from December 18, 2021.

However, O’Boyle, who has practised law for more than 30 years, mainly serving legal aid clients, appealed the Tribunal’s decision at the High Court at Auckland.

READ MORE:
* Whangārei lawyer suspended after accusing client’s ex-partner of hacking social media accounts

Justice Mary Peters issued the decision late last year, which was recently published online, quashing the suspension and instead substituting it with a censure.

Kate Davenport KC acting for O’Boyle submitted the consequences of the period of suspension were greater than the tribunal was likely to have understood, and indeed greater than the appellant or counsel understood at the time.

This was because O’Boyle’s practice largely consisted of civil legal aid and any period of suspension terminates “provider” status.

O’Boyle would have to reapply to be a legal aid provider which would extend the time she was without income up to four to five weeks, possibly longer.

Luke Radich and Milan Djurich, acting on behalf of the Auckland Standards Committee opposed the appeal, submitting the suspension was warranted.

Justice Peters said a censure was the most appropriate substitute.

“This, in combination with the supervision that has already been ordered (and undertaken in part), strikes the best balance between punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation,” Justice Peters said.

Justice Peters also said a censure sent a clear and public message to O’Boyle and others in the profession.

In the Tribunal’s decision, Judge Adams said O’Boyle became “over-involved” in a case after a client lost day-to-day care of children to an ex-partner.

She then sent letters to the ex-partner’s employer, and to another employer, copying in the Privacy Commissioner.

“It has come to my client’s attention at least four people have been accessing her digital media accounts,” O’Boyle sent in a letter.

“One of the IP addresses also accessed my computer.”

The Tribunal said the letters contained false allegations and “unsubstantiated speculation dressed up as fact”.

The Tribunal found the letters were designed to damage the employment relationships of the two victims who were senior employees at government departments.

“They were embarrassed by the communications.”

In the decision, the Tribunal found O’Boyle willingly participated in the potentially harmful correspondence and failed to recognise it was unwise to act on instructions from a client “out for blood”.

O’Boyle failed in her professional role.

Judge Adams said O’Boyle was under personal strain during the period of offending.

“She advances her roles as a rescuer, particularly in what she describes as high conflict cases, one who works unremittingly and unrewardingly at the coalface of her clients.”