The High Court of New Zealand has imposed a one month practicing suspension on lawyer Janet Mason, who was the counsel assisting the Commission of Inquiry that investigated the appointment of Barbara Malimali as FICAC Commissioner.
The suspension starts from August 1, according to the ruling handed down on July 18 by Justice Geoffrey John Venning.
Ms Mason had appealed against a ruling by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal that addressed Ms Mason’s failure to comply with a professional training order.
The issue originated in 2020 when the Wellington Standards Committee found Ms Mason’s actions unsatisfactory, citing breaches of competence, diligence, and court process obligations under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.
The Committee ordered her to complete a Civil Litigation Skills course within six months, ending September 16, 2023, and imposed a $3,500 fine and $2,000 in costs.
Ms Mason did not comply, citing her heavy workload.
The Committee launched a second investigation into Ms Mason’s non-compliance, leading to a Tribunal hearing in October 2024.
The Tribunal ruled that Ms Mason’s failure to attend the course constituted a wilful breach, amounting to misconduct.
On November 27, 2024, it imposed a three-month suspension starting April 11, 2025, a censure, and costs totalling over $40,000, noting Ms Mason’s lack of remorse and disrespect for professional institutions.
Ms Mason appealed both the liability and penalty decisions, arguing the Tribunal misjudged her intent and imposed an excessive penalty.
In the High Court, Justice Venning dismissed the liability appeal, affirming the Tribunal’s finding that Mason’s non-compliance was deliberate.
The Court found her actions reflected an attempt to negotiate rather than comply, supporting the misconduct finding.
The Court allowed the penalty appeal, reducing the suspension to one-month, effective August 1, 2025, to lessen the impact on Ms Mason’s clients.
“I consider that while suspension was necessary, three months was an excessive penalty having regard to the gravity of Ms Mason’s conduct overall, her personal history and her professional obligations,” said Justice Venning.
“I consider the need to reinforce the importance of complying with orders of the Standards Committee can be met by a short term of suspension of one month.”
“A one-month suspension makes the point that practitioners must comply with such orders, but will reduce the impact on Ms Mason personally, and on her clients generally.”
