Lawyer awaits penalty hearing for using a client’s money as his own

A Wellington lawyer who used a client’s money as if it was his own is awaiting a hearing to decide the professional penalty he will face.

Alwyn O’Connor had behaved in a disgraceful or dishonourable way in relation to one client and was guilty of negligence or incompetence to such a degree that it reflected on his fitness to practice in respect of another, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found.

His two clients were unsophisticated and O’Connor didn’t structure the professional relationship. He tried to excuse it by casting his connection to them as friendships, the tribunal’s decision said.

He controlled the finances of one man who was in jail and used the money as if it was his own, much more than the $25,000 the man agreed to loan him. O’Connor said he had planned to work for free so did not follow the usual formal processes for a client. The work ranged from negotiations over the man’s father’s estate to arranging for someone to look after a dog while the man was in prison for more than two years.

READ MORE:
* Social worker failed to maintain professional boundaries
* Lawyer who caused $85K bank loss is under interim suspension, resigns from council
* Wellington lawyer Chris Tennet awaits penalty on misconduct charge

In general the tribunal preferred the evidence of the client to that of O’Connor. It said the client made a strongly favourable impression as a truthful witness, was straightforward and lacking guile.

“Regrettably, this was not so for Mr O’Connor. We found him evasive, selective in recall, obstructive and obfuscating.”

There was evidence O’Connor withdrew $156,375.41 from the man’s bank account and repaid $155,950.00, the tribunal said. It found he deliberately lied about another $22,000 withdrawn or spent using an ATM card which O’Connor said he never had.

Apart from one other person, O’Connor was the man’s only visitor in prison.

The other client knew O’Connor socially and had been doing building work for the lawyer while receiving a Covid-19 payment. He had the chance of a voluntary severance payment from his employer but hoped to get a better redundancy deal and spoke to O’Connor about it.

The man missed a deadline to ask for voluntary severance, O’Connor arranged an extension but then suggested the man might have a personal grievance and the second deadline for taking voluntary severance was unreasonable.

But the deadline passed, and the employer said the man should return to work. A belated attempt to accept the offer failed and the man chose to leave anyway without the severance payment.

O’Connor had been wrong not to separate his professional obligations to the man, from their friendship, the tribunal said.

The tribunal had not set a date for a penalty to be imposed on O’Connor.