Auckland lawyer struck off for flagrant and gross misconduct
There are professional standards that need to be upheld.
Peter Davey
An Auckland lawyer accused of failing to promptly pay the proceeds of farm sales and not completing clients’ instructions has had her name struck from the roll of barristers and solicitors.
Neshia Holdaway, director of Norwest City Law in Waimauku and also known as Rabbul Nisha Holdaway, was struck off following a scathing ruling of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.
Tribunal deputy chairman John Adams took aim at her disengagement from her governing body after she refused to comply with requests from the Auckland Standards Committee following complaints.
“Whether her disengagement arises from arrogance or from some other reason, we are uncertain,” Adams said in a written decision.
Holdaway appeared before the tribunal in Auckland at a hearing on Thursday to learn her penalty. The appearance followed an abortive penalty hearing late last year.
At the December 16 hearing, she was represented by Auckland lawyer Virginia Wethey, who successfully argued for more time to seek the medical evidence they said was required to argue her case.
The tribunal granted the application to delay the final hearing of her penalty but served Holdaway with an interim suspension from practice. The fact of the suspension was suppressed on an interim basis by the tribunal.
Holdaway has argued her lapses arose from medical and personal issues. Details of those problems are also suppressed.
Three months later, when her penalty hearing came around, she appeared alone without legal representation at the tribunal’s rooms on Federal St. Holdaway told the tribunal she was seeking permanent suppression and non-publication orders and said the interim suspension orders were sufficient to address her breaches.
“What has been handed down in terms of interim suppression is quite sufficient,” she said.
Peter Davey, counsel for the Law Society’s Auckland Standards Committee, did not agree.
He said the case was sufficiently serious to justify striking her name from the register.
Davey said Holdaway continued to minimise her conduct and as a result lacked insight into her breaches.
He acknowledged the hardship Holdaway had faced but said there was an overriding need to protect the public and profession.
“There are professional standards that need to be upheld,” he said.
“There’s a real risk that those won’t be upheld unless she is struck off.”
In reply, Holdaway said she wanted to return to practice to help residents in the West Auckland community of Waimauku, where she is based, and which she said was hard hit by the recent cyclone.
“I set up out there for my community,” she said.
“I think strike-off is too harsh. Suspension itself has posed a lot of difficulties for me.
“I felt I have been bullied from time to time, the profession is known for that.
“I have tried to stand my ground from time to time, but that doesn’t warrant suspension.”
After deliberation the tribunal said Holdaway was to be struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors.
“Struck off the roll since when?” she asked. “Today,” Adams replied.
She was ordered to reimburse the law society for the tribunal’s costs and to pay other court costs. Certain personal and medical information was also suppressed permanently.
Holdaway indicated she may appeal the costs order.
The tribunal found her guilty of three charges of misconduct. Davey said further charges against her had recently been filed with the tribunal, but these were not considered at Thursday’s hearing.
One charge she faced concerned two unrelated clients. All complainants in the case were granted permanent name suppression.
One client complained Holdaway had retained the sale proceeds of a farm without his consent and she had not released his files to his new lawyers.
Another complained she had not followed through on instructions regarding a gifting arrangement.
In the first case, she failed to reply to requests for information from the Standards Committee.
“She believed the Standards Committee did not need any more documents because, in her view, it was simply about money and the money was secure, in her submission,” Adams said.
Reluctance to comply with Standards Committee requests was also reported in the second case regarding the gifting arrangement.
“When the Standards Committee requested her response, Ms Holdaway claimed the complaint was an effort to reduce her fees.”
The second charge concerned an 86-year-old client whose farm sale settled on April 30, 2020.
When the settlement funds were not paid to him promptly, he instructed new lawyers who asked Holdaway to confirm the settlement had gone ahead and to forward all files.
She did not comply.
“She took the view that the new solicitors did not need the documents,” Adams said.
The new solicitors complained on behalf of their client and she missed a deadline from the Lawyers Complaints Service to respond.
After a follow-up letter, she wrote back saying she needed more time due to various medical issues.
She was granted another extension of several months but again failed to respond to email requests and voicemails.
The third and final charge related to a client who instructed her to pay over $400,000 of their funds, held in Holdaway’s trust account, to a wellknown wealth management firm.
She failed to do so and suggested anti-money laundering checks were an impediment and would take six to eight weeks.
“She seemed to think her own privacy would be breached by complying with anti-money laundering requirements,” Adams said.
“We find these propositions puzzling and concerning.”
Four months later, the client instructed new lawyers who sent a request to Holdaway for files, whereupon she finally paid the funds into the account of the wealth management firm.
A similar story to the other charges unfolded. The client’s new lawyers complained but Holdaway failed to comply with requests from the Standards Committee.
“It is settled law that practitioners have a basic professional obligation to co-operate with the Law Society as the profession’s governing body and to provide it with accurate information,” Adams said.
“Holdaway’s failures to respond were, in each case, inexcusably tardy.
“Where she eventually responded, her response was only partial.
‘‘We find the magnitude of her failures were flagrant and gross.”
Disgraced lawyer Neshia Holdaway. Photo / Dean Purcell