Lawyers judged ‘fit and proper’

The two lawyers at the heart of the Russell McVeagh scandal have had their practising certificates renewed, though it appears they could still be investigated.

Part of that renewal is confirmation they are ‘‘fit and proper’’ people.

It is alleged that one of the pair drunkenly groped and tried to kiss summer clerks, before trying to get into one’s taxi. No criminal charges are thought to have been laid.

At another function, it is said he acted in a ‘‘sexually inappropriate’’ manner. He later left Russell McVeagh and is still practising. The other person – a solicitor – was allegedly involved in an incident at a central Wellington bar. It is understood the summer clerk in this incident made an initial call to police but did not pursue charges.

Both men had their renewals put through on June 30 by the Law Society, which said there were checks and balances in place. Privacy rules stopped it from discussing individual applications.

Catriona MacLennan, who came close to being censured for criticising a judge’s ruling on a domestic abuse case, said her run-in with the Law Society showed it had the power to act. She expected its standards committee was already doing so.

Her case was sparked by a complaint by a serial-complainer who ‘‘trolled’’ her on social media for ‘‘a lengthy period’’ and took exception to her advocacy against domestic violence, she said.

‘‘On the basis of a complaint by this man, the committee began an investigation against me. It spent considerable time on it and then wrote a 14-page decision. This appears to indicate it has the

resources it requires to act.’’

She pointed out the National Standards Committee could open its own investigation, as it did in her case. That committee could appoint its own investigators and, if a case made it to the Disciplinary Tribunal, it could suspend lawyers from practice while matters were dealt with.

Olivia Wensley, an outspoken former lawyer, understood one of the clerks involved in the alleged Russell McVeagh scandals had now formally complained to the Law Society.

The practising certificate renewals were ‘‘farcical but totally unsurprising’’ and, while it could now be investigating, it should have done so two years ago, Wensley said.

‘‘The Law Society is complicit as it is protecting these offenders and allowing them to continue to practise,’’ she said.

‘‘It’s time for the Law Society to stop circling the wagon and ‘‘protecting their own’’ and start truly looking after the public interest.’’

A Law Society spokesman would not comment on Wensley’s allegations.

Privacy reasons meant he could not comment on individual cases but, when applying for renewal, lawyers were obliged to declare any matter that might affect their fitness to practise law.

If an issue was declared, it could be referred to the Practice Approval Committee, which decided whether to renew the certificate. ‘‘If a person has made a declaration and paid the fees and levies by the required date, they are to be treated as if they hold a practising certificate, until a decision is made.’’

There were 22 such referrals for the 2018-2019 practising year.