Instead, he heard about concerns over his cognitive abilities, which he strongly rejected.
The lawyer, who has interim name suppression, applied to strike out the charges of professional misconduct, or alternatively, personal misconduct, before the substantive hearing.
If the case proceeded and the charges were proven, he could face a temporary suspension.
His lengthy submissions in support of his application were criticised by the counsel for the national standards committee that brought them.
Michael Hodge told the five-member panel for the Lawyers & Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal that the barrister had failed to engage “at all” with the matters before him.
“He says the allegations do not, or cannot, amount to misconduct, but that is the very issue before you: is there sufficient evidence for the charges to proceed?” Hodge said.
The allegations arose from the barrister’s alleged claim that judges had “clubbed together” to decide cases not on their merits but out of ill will towards him.
The barrister, whose long and previously unblemished career was noted during the hearing, was also the subject of concerns raised by the tribunal panel’s deputy chairman, Dr John Adams.
He said there was a “lack of substantive basis” for the allegations.
It was during a discussion over continued name suppression that concerns were expressed about the alleged conduct and about whether the public’s right to know outweighed the barrister’s own interests.
“We are concerned to look after you to some extent, but there are other interests affecting this.”
Adams said people had a right to know the relevant features about lawyers they instructed.
Matter stemmed from earlier case
The lawyer is alleged to have criticised a series of senior judges, including those on the Supreme Court, over a sequence of decisions that did not go in his favour.
The charges arose from a complaint to the Legal Complaints Review Officer.
The independent body reviews decisions made by the New Zealand Law Society and New Zealand Society of Conveyancers Standards Committees on complaints against lawyers and conveyancers.
The barrister said that, in broad terms, the matter had its genesis in an earlier case in which he acted for a member of the public against a “high-profile member” of a pedigree animal breeding industry.
He said it had manifested into the source of criticisms he allegedly made when judgments were not in his favour.
The Supreme Court ruled that the principles of summary judgment law had been applied in the lower courts, and there was no basis on which to grant leave to appeal, a conclusion the barrister believed was incorrect.
He then claimed at the hearing that he did not know which judges he had allegedly criticised.
“I assume the judges I’m accused of criticising are those in the judgments specifically referred to, but I’m not sure,” he said.
While judges had “thick skins” when it came to such matters, it was the “attack on the institution” of the law that formed the basis of the charges against him, the tribunal heard.
‘Extreme instances of inappropriate conduct’ alleged
The barrister allegedly criticised the decisions as an attempt to have the courts take into account what he believed were “extreme instances of inappropriate conduct”.
He alleged the judgments were “littered with statements” that were, in effect, “harassment”.
“The debate I had, and which I’m still having in relation to some aspects of this type of behaviour, is the reason we are here today,” he said.
At times, Adams had to steer the barrister back to the issue at hand – whether the charges should be struck out – rather than matters he considered irrelevant to the hearing.
Dr John Adams, who chaired the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, said there was a “lack of substantive basis” for making the allegations against the judges.
The barrister then referred to the manner in which the case had proceeded, including allegations that the charges had been altered from those originally approved by the Legal Complaints Review Officer through the addition of personal misconduct, describing it as akin to the “wild west”.
He felt the tribunal was unable to progress the matter without granting leave to amend the charges.
Adams said the tribunal had the power to amend the charges at the substantive hearing.
Hodge said there was sufficient evidence to bring charges of misconduct, and that it was untenable for the accused to say he had “no idea” which judges he was alleged to have criticised.
They were “serious allegations”, which were written in black and white in submissions, Hodge said.
The tribunal reserved its decision.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government, for the Nelson Mail.