Browsing by Author "Surgenor LJ"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • 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.