Dunedin lawyer Frazer Barton has been cleared of any unsatisfactory conduct in relation to the destruction of historical abuse records.
A statement released by the New Zealand Law Society this afternoon said Mr Barton would resume his role of president from tomorrow – after being on a leave absence for more than six months.
The Law Society received two complaints from within the legal profession about Mr Barton’s involvement in the destruction of records by Presbyterian Support Otago (PSO), but an investigation by a standards committee has resulted in no further action.
- PSO revelations: Lawyer Frazer Barton takes leave of absence
- Barton vacates uni council as PSO fallout continues
- Frazer Barton investigated by Law Society
- Destruction of Care
It was alleged he had brought the profession into disrepute by providing advice to the then Chief Executive Officer of PSO which resulted in the destruction of documents relevant to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care report.
Mr Barton was on the Board of PSO and acting in a governance role at the time.
The committee established that an email exchange on February 3, 2016 between Mr Barton and the CEO of PSO was the only evidence of advice he provided.
In it, the lawyer said records could be destroyed by a private organisation “at an appropriate anniversary or milestone”.
The standards committee had “no concern” with that advice.
“The committee’s view was that it could not be reasonably foreseen or expected that Mr Barton would have known that his response would be relied on in relation to an instruction by the CEO in early 2016 to destroy records without further follow-up discussion or advice or consideration of what an appropriate milestone or anniversary might be,” a Law Society report said.
“The committee considered that the wording of the email implicitly invited follow-up for further consideration about when any destruction might appropriately occur.”
There was no evidence that Mr Barton’s advice was sought or given in contemplation of a Royal Commission of Inquiry commencing, it ruled.
“After assessing all the evidence before it, the committee did not consider that Mr Barton’s conduct breached any specific rule or met the definition of unsatisfactory conduct . . . and so took no further action on the complaints,” the Law Society said.
“In the committee’s view, to find a breach in circumstances of this type risks imposing an unrealistic burden on lawyers generally in terms of having to foresee unexpected actions.”
The complaints against Mr Barton highlighted professional issues that arise for lawyers when serving on boards in a non-legal role, the Law Society said.
It was important lawyers were mindful of the risks involved in providing guidance that could constitute legal advice and ensure that any such advice was clear and considered, even when given in what may be taken as an informal context.
“On behalf of the Law Society Board, I’d like to express our confidence in Mr Barton,” vice-president David Campbell said.
“He brings a wealth of experience, knowledge, integrity and community service to his position.”
