Browsing by Author "Diesfeld K"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Case commentary: a ‘merciful approach’ to discipline for a New Zealand lawyer’s misconduct
    (Taylor and Francis Group, 2024-05-12) Diesfeld K; Rychert M; Surgenor LJ; Kelly O; Kersey K
    A recent decision reveals how a New Zealand’s disciplinary tribunal promoted justice for an unwell lawyer in a case of professional misconduct. In 2023, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (LCDT) applied a ‘merciful approach’ when assessing the lawyer’s misconduct and health issues. In Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Ms W [2023], the LCDT discussed the impacts of reproductive treatment in relation to the practitioner’s conduct. This decision is the foundation to compare the disciplinary regime for legal and health practitioners in New Zealand. The article outlines New Zealand’s framework for discipline of lawyers, noting the absence of a health pathway. The article discusses opportunities to resolve cases involving impaired lawyers outside the disciplinary system, including benefits and disadvantages of mandatory reporting. While focusing on the legal profession, the discussion is relevant to other professions and examines health-promoting regulatory strategies from other jurisdictions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Practitioner Rehabilitation following Professional Misconduct: A Common Practice Now in Need of a Theory?
    (MDPI (Basel, Switzerland), 2023-06-15) Surgenor LJ; Diesfeld K; Rychert M; Easteal P
    Theories of rehabilitation have long been articulated in health and criminal justice contexts, driving rehabilitation practices in each area. In this article, several prominent theories are described to illustrate how their core assumptions aim to facilitate recovery and reduce relapse or reoffending. Professional disciplinary bodies are also often compelled by law or regulation to attend to practitioners’ rehabilitation after professional misconduct, with similar aims to restore the practitioner to safe practice. Yet, no rehabilitation theory has been articulated in this context despite professional rehabilitation being distinct from other settings. We propose that the current absence of a coherent theory is problematic, leaving professional disciplinary bodies to ‘borrow’ assumptions from elsewhere. Since rehabilitation penalties are frequently made by professional disciplinary bodies, we review several theories from health and justice contexts and highlight elements that may be useful in developing professional misconduct rehabilitation theory. This includes proposing methodological approaches for empirical research to progress this.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand?
    (MDPI (Basel, Switzerland), 2024-12) Surgenor L; Diesfeld K; Rychert M; Kelly O; Kersey K; Easteal P
    Profession-related disciplinary tribunals consider a range of factors when determining penalties following findings of professional misconduct. Penalties that impose conditions on practice hold the potential to facilitate practitioners’ rehabilitation back to safe practice. This study explores the use of penalty conditions by three disciplinary tribunals in New Zealand (the Lawyers and Conveyancers Tribunal [LCDT]; the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal [HPDT]; and the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal [TDT]). Disciplinary decisions published between 2018 and 2022 (N = 538) were analysed, coding the explicit reasons cited for imposing or not imposing conditions and if rehabilitation was cited as a penalty principle. Conditions were imposed in 58.6% of the cases, though tribunals varied. All of the tribunals commonly referred to the concepts of remorse/insight, or lack of it, as reasons for ordering or not ordering conditions, and they often considered the seriousness of the misconduct. Reasons for not ordering conditions were more varied between tribunals, as was citing rehabilitation as a penalty principle. The findings suggest that tribunals give substantial consideration to the decision of imposing conditions, drawing on both objective (e.g., past misconduct) and subjective (e.g., cognitive and psychological) phenomena. The reasons did align with concepts found in broad sentencing guidelines from some other jurisdictions (e.g., criminal justice response), though future research on defining and measuring these concepts may help understand their predictive and protective utility.