Chris Medlicott gave the woman five years of free legal representation, provided her with a plot of land and more than $50,000 for rent and bills and continued as her solicitor when she had made a claim against him, the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal has heard.
In the decision, released last month, chairwoman Dale Clarkson ordered Mr Medlicott to pay costs of $22,153, but opted not to fine him given the substantial costs he had already incurred.
The lawyer told the Otago Daily Times it had been "a long process", but refused to comment further.
The tribunal decision revealed how he had met "Ms A" in 2015 when she sought his help in having a protection order against her lifted.
While that did not proceed, the pair remained in contact and gradually developed a friendship.
The following year, when Ms A contacted Mr Medlicott about representing her in another matter he became concerned about his ability to act in a "detached and professional manner" and instructed a barrister to act for her.
The worries were well founded as the pair had a four-month intimate relationship in 2017.
Despite that, Mr Medlicott remained the solicitor on record and continued to advise Ms A about her will.
Things deteriorated from there.
Ms A made threats about contacting the New Zealand Law Society over perceived delays in her case, but Mr Medlicott continued to back her, saying he was concerned no other lawyer would take her on.
He said she behaved in "an emotional and at times erratic manner" but he did not take the threats seriously.
But in September 2019, he gave her legitimate cause for complaint.
Mr Medlicott discovered his computer, including his communications with Ms A, might have been accessed by a third party.
She used a new lawyer to pursue her claim against him, and they reached an agreement that Mr Medlicott would provide her with a block of land featuring a small studio.
The tribunal said he then "unwisely" took up the role of instructing solicitor again for several months before the matter was finalised.
It was that conflict of interest that constituted negligence — accepted by Mr Medlicott during the hearing in Christchurch.
Despite the preceding acrimony he gave Ms A $55,000 to cover her rent and bills over 20 months, and tribunal chairwoman Ms Clarkson noted he had not charged her for his five years of legal work.
The standards committee argued Mr Medlicott was guilty of gross negligence but his counsel Adam Ross, KC, disputed that.
He put it down to an "ill-judged brief relationship with a client and ... all other errors led from that".
The tribunal agreed with that characterisation, calling the negligence "misguided" and the breach of privacy "sloppy".
Measured against that were Mr Medlicott’s glowing references from senior colleagues, his acceptance of blame and his 37 years of legal work without infraction.
Ms Clarkson said he was now receiving regular supervision.
"We certainly do not consider that there is any risk of reoffending," she said.
The censure issued against Mr Medlicott acknowledged the respect he had in the legal community and the high standards he had previously set.
"That makes it disappointing that you allowed yourself to fall into error, even if you thought at the time you were being helpful to your client. Your close relationship with your client blinded you to the conflicts which arose."
rob.kidd@odt.co.nz , Court reporter
