Sandwich spat between lawyers draws criticism from legal watchdog

• Two criminal lawyers clashed over shared space and a sandwich, leading to a dispute - and a formal complaint
• Legal Complaints Review Officer Fraser Goldsmith has urged both lawyers to resolve disputes professionally without formal complaints
• Goldsmith found no evidence to support the complaint, emphasising the need for respect and courtesy.

Two criminal lawyers have clashed over whether a sandwich should have been eaten in an interview room with allegations flying between both sides as to how the matter unfolded - and who said what.

A diabetic lawyer eating the sandwich while on a break claims a duty lawyer barged into the room "like a wild animal let loose" and shouted at him to leave.

But, the duty lawyer claims she asked nicely but he refused to leave and was demeaning and made comments such as "young lady, you need to learn manners" in front of her clients.

The spat has now ended up before Legal Complaints Review Officer Fraser Goldsmith, who said two mature, criminal advocates should have been able to resolve a "professional contretemps over alleged intemperance" without engaging a lawyers' complaints service.

In a situation where one lawyer said "black" and the other said "white" with no corroborative evidence of either account, Goldsmith and the standards committee reminded both lawyers of their obligation to treat fellow practitioners with respect and courtesy, such that the profession was not brought into disrepute.

The complaint dated back to June 2023 when the pair, who have not been named, were practising in the criminal courts.

Both had client matters to attend to on the district court list on the day of the incident. The court building had a lawyers' room and three client interview rooms.

During a 15-minute court break, the first lawyer entered an empty interview room to eat a sandwich, a self-management measure for his diabetic condition. While he was there, a duty lawyer entered the interview room wanting to use it for a confidential discussion with her clients.

The lawyer eating his lunch said he did not want to leave and "words were exchanged".

Goldsmith said in his recently released decision that the lawyers had given different accounts of the nature and tenor of those words.

The first lawyer claimed the duty lawyer, "like a wild animal let loose... barged into the room and shouted at me to get out, get out!"

Her clients were surprised, apologised and too embarrassed to say anything else, he said. He "counselled" the duty lawyer to have courtesy and respect for a fellow practitioner.

But, the duty lawyer disputed that version of events and said she "politely" asked if she could use the room for a client discussion and could the first lawyer eat his sandwich outside. She said he refused, saying he would finish his sandwich first and then leave.

The duty lawyer said she suggested to him it was not an appropriate use of the interview room. She said she asked him to eat his sandwich outside or in the lawyers' room because she needed the room to take instructions, but he refused a second time and said he had to eat his sandwich because he had diabetes.

Upon asking him to leave for a third time, the lawyer allegedly again refused and became argumentative, saying "young lady, you need to learn manners" and "other things along the same lines" in front of her clients, which she considered to be demeaning.

"At this point I advised courtesy was gone and could he just leave which he eventually did but not without constant complaining about leaving and how lacking in manners I was in front of the clients," she said.

While the lawyer complained the duty lawyer had failed to maintain professional standards and did not treat him with respect, the duty lawyer said she was surprised and disappointed by his attitude and that his use of the complaints process was improper and an abuse of process.

Goldsmith, in reviewing the case, said it was disappointing the matter was before the legal complaints review office.

"We are where we are, however."

Goldsmith agreed with and confirmed a standards committee finding that, on the basis of the man's account of the incident, there was no evidence of any bullying, discrimination or harassment and it was for him to provide evidence supporting his complaint and not for him to look to the committee to substantiate it.

In circumstances where the lawyer's allegations were disputed, the duty lawyer had raised similar concerns about the lawyer's conduct and there was no third-party evidence to corroborate the account, Goldsmith said it was unnecessary or inappropriate to take the complaint any further.

* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.