Case commentary: a ‘merciful approach’ to discipline for a New Zealand lawyer’s misconduct
dc.citation.issue | 3 | |
dc.citation.volume | 31 | |
dc.contributor.author | Diesfeld K | |
dc.contributor.author | Rychert M | |
dc.contributor.author | Surgenor LJ | |
dc.contributor.author | Kelly O | |
dc.contributor.author | Kersey K | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-04T23:21:18Z | |
dc.date.available | 2024-07-04T23:21:18Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2024-05-12 | |
dc.description.abstract | A recent decision reveals how a New Zealand’s disciplinary tribunal promoted justice for an unwell lawyer in a case of professional misconduct. In 2023, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (LCDT) applied a ‘merciful approach’ when assessing the lawyer’s misconduct and health issues. In Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Ms W [2023], the LCDT discussed the impacts of reproductive treatment in relation to the practitioner’s conduct. This decision is the foundation to compare the disciplinary regime for legal and health practitioners in New Zealand. The article outlines New Zealand’s framework for discipline of lawyers, noting the absence of a health pathway. The article discusses opportunities to resolve cases involving impaired lawyers outside the disciplinary system, including benefits and disadvantages of mandatory reporting. While focusing on the legal profession, the discussion is relevant to other professions and examines health-promoting regulatory strategies from other jurisdictions. | |
dc.description.confidential | false | |
dc.edition.edition | May 2024 | |
dc.format.pagination | 574-586 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Diesfeld K, Rychert M, Surgenor LJ, Kelly O, Kersey K. (2024). Case commentary: a ‘merciful approach’ to discipline for a New Zealand lawyer’s misconduct. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. 31. 3. (pp. 574-586). | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/13218719.2024.2340098 | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1934-1687 | |
dc.identifier.elements-type | journal-article | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1321-8719 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/70093 | |
dc.language | English | |
dc.publisher | Taylor and Francis Group | |
dc.publisher.uri | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13218719.2024.2340098 | |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Psychiatry, Psychology and Law | |
dc.rights | (c) 2024 The Author/s | |
dc.rights | CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 | |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | |
dc.subject | disciplinary proceedings | |
dc.subject | health pathway | |
dc.subject | impairment | |
dc.subject | lawyers’ discipline | |
dc.subject | mandatory reporting | |
dc.subject | name suppression | |
dc.subject | professional discipline | |
dc.subject | rehabilitation | |
dc.title | Case commentary: a ‘merciful approach’ to discipline for a New Zealand lawyer’s misconduct | |
dc.type | Journal article | |
pubs.elements-id | 489100 | |
pubs.organisational-group | College of Health |