Approached for comment, Mr Guest last night acknowledged he "deliberately didn't disclose" information on an incident that happened when he was a lawyer in Tauranga - an incident that led to his paying $22,000 to his former employer - but that he had paid a heavy price for his mistake.
The mistake of not disclosing that he accepted money from a client and subsequently agreed to pay restitution to his former employer was detailed in the tribunal's decision not to uphold his appeal against the New Zealand Law Society.
A heavily abridged version of the decision was released to the Otago Daily Times this month, but the reasons behind it could not be reported until a suppression order lapsed and the full version was obtained from a source last night.
The five-person tribunal says Mr Guest should have disclosed, at his restoration hearing, details of an incident involving a client from Waihi, and that it did not accept as credible or sufficient his explanations for not telling it what had happened.
"What is material is that instead of being clear as to his past misdemeanor and demonstrating a new honesty ... concerned as he clearly was about the Waihi client matter, he embarked on a course which we can only describe as being deceptive."
"The actions of the appellant in taking the approach which he did to the Waihi client matter give a contemporary view of his character and fitness although the [clearly material] events themselves were a long time ago."
The Law Society asked early in Mr Guest's application about rumours that "all had not been well" in Tauranga, where he worked between 1989 and 1991.
Mr Guest agreed to disclose his reasons for leaving Tauranga in exchange for what he saw as a commitment from the Law Society not to inquire further into his employment there.
He told the tribunal he left after admitting he accepted $100 cash for legal fees which should have gone to his employer.
He reached a confidential agreement with his employer and left for Dunedin.
The tribunal allowed his restoration to the roll, but it soon emerged Mr Guest had also paid $22,000 to his employer after he accepted payments from a client that should have gone to the firm.
Mr Guest, who said that was twice what the figure ought to have been, said he had no intention of misleading the tribunal.
He thought the questions he faced during the hearing were directed at the reasons why he left Tauranga.
He thought he did not have to discuss the Waihi matter, as it was brought to his attention when he was back in Dunedin, and he believed it was subject to a confidentiality agreement.
The tribunal did not think the timing made any difference, and believed Mr Guest misled it by detailing only the $100 matter in his application.
That he did not think the questions put to him were broad enough to include the Waihi incident - or that it had "gone out of his mind" - were not credible.
"We see all of this as being a sorry, almost desperate, overreaching by the appellant for restoration to a position where he could practise as a barrister, which he saw as within his grasp.
"This manipulative approach designed to keep the Waihi matter a secret from the tribunal considering his fitness to be restored to the roll is in itself clearly relevant to whether Mr Guest is a fit and proper person to hold a certificate."
Mr Guest last night said he accepted the decision and would not take the matter any further.
He said it was never disputed that the Waihi incident was covered by a confidentiality agreement, but that the tribunal believed he should have disclosed it nonetheless.
He was "condemned for not disclosing an event that happened 21 years ago".
"I think the only other comment I want to make is that the bad things in one's life are so often highlighted ... but very little emphasis is put on the good aspects," the Dunedin city councillor said.
Mr Guest, a former district court judge, was struck off in 2001 after being found guilty on two counts of professional misconduct for lying to a client and for taking $25,000 more of her funds for costs than he was entitled to.
His name was restored to the roll of barristers and solicitors in October after a hearing last year. .
The Law Society subsequently refused to issue him with a practising certificate, and Mr Guest challenged its decision before the tribunal in a hearing in Christchurch in June.
