Prominent Maori lawyer Donna Hall has appeared before a disciplinary tribunal in Wellington over her alleged role in both the buying and selling of land in the central North Island.
It is alleged Ms Hall acted for both a vendor and purchaser in a 2007 land deal without the consent of either party to represent the other party.
A charge was laid by the Wellington Standards Committee and a three-day hearing began today before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.
A Maori shareholder from the Tauhara Middle 15 Trust, which bought land from Landcorp for $5 million jointly with another trust in 2007, complained about Ms Hall's conduct on the basis she advised both Tauhara and the Hikuwai Hapu Lands Trust, which facilitated the transaction.
Further, it is alleged Ms Hall failed to advise each party of the areas of conflict or potential conflict, and advise the purchaser and lender that each should take independent advice.
Although the Law Society's standards committee can impose penalties of its own, the tribunal's sanctions for charges brought under the 2006 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act are much harsher and include being struck off the roll, suspension or fines of up to $30,000.
Last year, Ms Hall sought a tribunal order suppressing her name on the grounds that as a well-known lawyer she would suffer "unfair prejudice, beyond that of any other practitioner charged".
However, tribunal chairman Judge Dale Clarkson said Ms Hall failed to persuade the tribunal there were grounds for over-riding the presumption of openness or the expectation for publicity.
In opening his case lawyer Gary Turkington, representing the Wellington Standards Committee, said the charge was to do with the role Ms Hall played in the purchase of the block of land, and the allegation was that during the on-selling of the land she was in a conflicted position because she was also acting for the purchasing trust.
In authorising the sale, the Maori Land Court gave its approval for the execution of mortgage, but signalled it was not approving the purchase.
"Because it required five questions to answer and in broad terms it was to do with the prudence of proceeding''.
Ms Hall by-passed these questions, Mr Turkington said.
"It was an irreconcilable conflict.''
"[It] has to do with the practitioner's loyalty, how can she serve two masters? Each required her to go in different directions.''
The hearing is continuing
