A newly admitted lawyer who acted for warring flatmates in a dispute has been found guilty of misconduct and censured by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. Enjoy access to premium content, expert analysis, and industry updates. A newly admitted lawyer who acted for several warring flatmates in a fractious household dispute has been found guilty of two charges of misconduct and censured by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. At the time, Mohammad Faran Shahzad was not authorised to practise on his own account, the tribunal heard. The problem arose late 2022, when Shahzad, then an employed but inexperienced junior, undertook legal work for a flatmate. This included registering a trademark and logo, advising on a plumbing dispute, issuing an invoice, sending a letter on the flatmate’s business letterhead and preparing for a Disputes Tribunal hearing. But when the relationship with his flatmate soured, Shahzad began acting for others in the flat, who were immigrant employees of the first flatmate and involved in an employment dispute with him. The tribunal said Shahzad had difficulty recognising the “obvious” conflict. He had previously acted for the opposing party, lived with all parties, was emotionally involved and was potentially a witness.
A newly admitted lawyer who acted for several warring flatmates in a fractious household dispute has been found guilty of two charges of misconduct and censured by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.
The case highlights concerns about how early-career practitioners may navigate conflicts of interest, especially when personal ties to clients exist. The tribunal’s findings suggest that encyclopedic candour and strict supervision are essential when handling regulated matters for cohabiting clients or individuals with overlapping interests.
Key points:
- The practitioner, Mohammad Faran Shahzad, was not authorised to practise on his own account at the relevant time.
- The misconduct arose from late 2022 activities for a flatmate, including trademark registration, logo design, plumbing dispute advice, invoicing, issuing a letter on business letterhead, and preparation for a Disputes Tribunal hearing.
- Subsequent work for other flatmates involved immigrant employees in an employment dispute with the first flatmate.
- The tribunal found difficulty in recognising the obvious conflict due to factors such as prior representation of the opposing party, shared living arrangements, emotional involvement, and potential witness status.
Author's note: This summary retains the core facts and the tribunal’s conclusions while paraphrasing surrounding context to maintain clarity and brevity.
Author's summary (120–200 characters): A junior lawyer acted for conflicting flatmates, failed to recognise an obvious conflict, and was censured for misconduct while not yet authorised to practise on own account.