Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Mr U [2024] NZLCDT 10 (9 April 2024) [pdf, 118 KB]
...misconduct, Mr U was under considerable stress. His inability to afford counsel meant that he was personally litigating protracted Family Court proceedings. At the same time, we understand he had some part time employment and certainly had the primary care of his two children. These are difficult circumstances for any inexperienced lawyer to cope with, and it is clear from the nature of Mr U’s “venting” that he was not coping. [28] In the circumstances where we have found...