Janet Mason, the senior legal counsel assisting the Commission in the ongoing FICAC Inquiry is herself facing disciplinary penalty in New Zealand for failing to comply with a disciplinary order.
Ms Mason has been directed to file submissions on her penalty by 24th January this year before a date is set for her professional penalty hearing. The current penalty for not adhering to an order is one of a number of disciplinary tribunal hearings Ms Mason has been involved in. These include one in 2015 where her appeal to open a sole practice was denied as she had failed to pay taxes of $364,666.57 and her firm went into liquidation.
The tribunal in 2015 found that “The failures in respect of the management of the Company’s financial affairs together with the need for the appellant to achieve better management practices indicates that presently the appellant, if granted a certificate to practise on her own account, would pose a risk to the public and undermine public confidence in the provision of legal services.”
But in a short exclusive interview with Mai TV, Ms Mason defended her suitability to remain part of the Inquiry saying the issue is “one of a number of attempts to shut the Commission down.”
“Those matters have actually been raised. I do have complaints or a number of complaints – two of them that are related – that relate to work that I had done in New Zealand. I am a practising lawyer in NZ. I am a senior barrister, and I have been for almost 25 years, and I continue to practice there. There are no issues.”
Ms Mason believes the issues are now being raised to stop her involvement with the Commission.
“What has happened with this commission of inquiry is that there was an attempt yesterday (Wednesday) by Ms Malimali and her team to have me removed from the commission. It is just one of a number of attempts.”
Mai TV reached out to FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali whose appointment is the subject of the Inquiry, but she declined to comment as per instructions from the Commissioner.
“I cannot comment on anything that happened in the COI as we have been informed by the Commissioner that we cannot speak about the proceedings to anyone. I am respecting that directive and cannot comment,” Ms Malimali said.
It is not clear at this stage if Mason previously disclosed her disciplinary issues before she was appointed, or whether the disciplinary matter is serious enough to affect Mason’s participation in the FICAC hearings.
Senior lawyers Mai TV reached out to say they want to study the disciplinary issues further before commenting.
However Mason says the “COI will continue until we have finished the appointment that we have been tasked with.”
“If you want to know more about the Law Society issue I am really happy to discuss it. All I can say is that the findings are being appealed. They are related. It’s nothing to do with behaviour like trust accounting. There are no client issues. In New Zealand, I’m involved in a lot of controversial matters. I work for a lot of Maori people on their constitutional issues.
“I can say it’s nothing to do with unethical behaviour on my part with handling client trust money. It’s the sort of thing that happens from time to time.”
Ms Mason maintained that Justice David Ashton-Lewis, who heads the Commission of Inquiry remains pleased with her work.
“His lordship has full trust in me. Very pleased with my work, so is the Prime Minister. I’ve done a lot of work in Fiji. And these issues do occur from time to time. It’s really nothing to worry about. As I said earlier, it’s merely a red herring that has been raised by certain people to try to shut the commission down.”
“I’m actually really happy that the media have asked me this, because i would rather face it and talk to you. i’m really happy to talk to you because i have no issues, right? there’s a process. it’s being appealed. i reject absolutely what the finding that has been made about me, and that’s why i’m appealing it. but thank you for asking me for my opinion. That’s really important. Thank you.”
Documents from the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal hearing held in October last year and sighted by Mai TV show that Mason was found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct in 2022 following a referral by a High Court Judge and subsequent inquiry by a Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS).
She was ordered by the Standards Committee to, among other things, undertake the Introduction to Civil Litigation Skills training within six months of the review period, which she did not comply with.
According to the Tribunal Mason seemed to regard the order as negotiable and was intent to challenge the order as she did not consider the introductory course to be appropriate for a practitioner of her seniority.
However her actions did not follow her words as she didn’t challenge for judicial review nor did she comply with the order to do the training course. This was despite the Law Society granting numerous requests from Mason for extension of deadlines.
The Disciplinary Tribunal decision handed down on 27th November 2024 found that Mason’s actions were “wilful or at the very least a reckless breach of the order” and amounted to misconduct.
“The Practitioner was subject to an order from the Standards Committee. Whether she accepted it or not, liked it or not, or was busy, she either had to comply with, or challenge that order properly through available legal channels. She did neither, instead acting in a way which showed distinct similarities to the conduct leading to the order being made in the first place,” the Tribunal found.
“Her actions were not those expected of a member of the profession which include showing respect for the rule of law and decisions of her professional body. Her actions were suggestive of a practitioner who regarded herself as above or having unique circumstances or too busy for such rules to apply to her.”
It was not for the Law Society to chase her with suggestions about how to comply with an order but, for her to engage with her professional body and, particularly after it was clear that all proper means of challenge to the Standards Committee’s order, whether taken or threatened (but not taken) were at an end.”
“The Tribunal considered that the practitioner’s non-compliance with the training order was deliberate and therefore constituted a wilful breach of the rules. If we are wrong in that, we are certainly satisfied that her conduct amounted to “…serious negligence of a type that evidences an indifference to and abuse of the privileges…”which she is accorded as a legal practitioner.”
“In summary, Ms Mason was subject to orders which she failed to challenge in time via the LCRO, and then did not challenge through threatened judicial review proceedings, which she sought further time to bring but ultimately did not.”
“We consider that members of the public would be dismayed if the failure of lawyers to comply with sanctions imposed upon them were to be tolerated.”
