Barry Hart is a ‘victim of his own success’ – lawyer
UPDATE: Barry Hart’s lawyer says the success of his practice became so great that he couldn’t keep up with everything, causing some cases to suffer.
The high-profile crime barrister has today attended a penalty hearing after earlier being found guilty of professional misconduct.
Mr Hart grossly overcharged clients and obstructed the lawyers and conveyancer’s disciplinary tribunal by delaying proceedings by not providing certain documents.
His lawyer, Greg King, told the tribunal striking off is the “ultimate penalty” and would have a detrimental impact on Mr Hart’s otherwise distinguished career.
Mr Hart has agreed to pay a refund of $20,000 instead.
Mr King says there were failings in “communication and business administration, and in some respects he can be seen as a victim of his own success".
“As he became more widely known for his skills, the demand for his services has increased exponentially.
“When you’ve got one case too many, it’s not one case that suffers, it’s all of them.
“This is apt to describe someone who’s sole practice became a sizeable practice without perhaps keeping up to date with the necessary administration means to deal with it,” Mr King says.
He also made much of Mr Hart’s 46-year legal career, during which he did much pro bono work, and “built up a reputation as a very experienced, skilled, leading lawyer”.
However, Law Society lawyer Paul Collins says using Mr Hart’s profile is no excuse for his actions.
“This lawyer cannot say that he was caught off guard because he was caught unknowing in his professional responsibilities.
“He is absolutely without excuse, and the sort of excuse a junior lawyer might be able to persuade a tribunal of, shouldn’t be taken into account.”
The tribunal has reserved its decision.
10am:
The Law Society’s standards committee wants disgraced defence lawyer Barry Hart struck off after he grossly overcharged a Samoan family and withheld documents.
Earlier this month, the lawyers and conveyancers disciplinary tribunal found Mr Hart guilty of professional misconduct.
A penalty hearing is under way at the Auckland District Court, in which Law Society lawyer Paul Collins is asking for Mr Hart to be struck off.
Mr Hart is present in court, with high-profile barrister Greg King acting for him.
Mr Collins has told the tribunal Mr Hart “lacks insight into his wrongdoing and the harm he has caused, and an absence of remorse”.
There is a lack of confidence Mr Hart “will not continue to fail professionally in the manner we’ve seen in this case”.
Mr Collins says there is a “need for the tribunal to establish and reinforce and maintain the standards and the reputation of the legal profession".
“Striking off is required. Anything less than suspension would be inadequate to ensure the public confidence in the legal profession.”
Mr Hart’s actions demonstrate an abuse of his “status as a member of the legal profession, an abandonment of responsibility to the point of contempt and actual harm to the interests of the public and the standing of the legal profession," Mr Collins says.
The hearing continues.
_3.jpg)





















Comments and questions24
All for a $35000 issue. The old mans back scratching circle at the law society is only on w witch hunt to suite there own agenda. They need a clean out within themselves and start with father and son Temm then go to the communist sporting group within
Is it just me or is the first post gibberish?
I agree. gibberish.
The last place you go if you want public confidence in the legal profession is the Law Society
Get Rodney Hide to investigate them.
it is no excuse to say that you have too much work.
If you have too much work already,do not take any more on.
There are plenty of other capable lawyers that can handle it,so give prospective clients a couple of names.
Of course this is gross over charging.
And not fronting up at the Law Society disciplinary hearing is in excusable.
It is difficult enough getting the Law Society to discpline their members.
If Hart was a member of NZICA,he would be out on his ear.
You've hit the nail on the head ...
Is this the same King that got McDonald off ?
Yes, the very same champion of the down-trodden and oppressed.
How fitting: one rogue lawyer defending another.
Hmmmm great minds think a like !
Barry Hart is a ‘victim of his own success’ – lawyer
Hell, and this guy managed to sway a jury, with trite comments such as that.
Best place is the HDC / medical Council - At least the law society is naming offenders and prepared to take action against them.
Agree, when will the MSM take start asking questions of other Incorporated Societies
If every lawyer who overcharged was to be struck off, there would be no lawyers left, except for those who are cheap but incompetent. What is the Law Society doing about the "gravy train" Waitangi Tribunal lawyers who are creaming it, often at the taxpayer's expense, putting up endless hightly questionable claims aimed at raiding the taxpayer's pockets??
Shakespeare's Henry VI:
"The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers".
Credit where credit is due Linsday, at these they are spreading it around a bit, ever heard of the RMA and the environment court?
Good work Greg and good luck Barry, your real sin is not being part of the good old boys club.
This guy may be a shark in the courtroom but is a hopeless property developer. He made a fatal blunter at the pinicle of his carreer by venturing into something he knew very little about. He had visions of grandeur. His distingusihed career is about to end in disgrace with looming bankruptcy and loss of a lawyer licence. A shame to a great legal mind.
I have just read the Law Society's disciplinary tribunal decisions in regard to Mr Hart.
He appears to treat the tribunal with contempt.
If he cannot have some respect for them,he deserves to be disciplined.
In regard to Frank Deliu's comment,my historic observation is that the NZ Law Society has been reluctant to adequately discipline its members.
I am pleased to see that matters are improving in this area.
Though they are still too protective in that Standards Committee decisions against lawyers hide the identity of the practitioner.
This does not protect the public.
Poor Barry, my heart (no pun intended) bleeds for him !!!
@ reddog
And the Law Societies primary roll is of curse to protect the public
Their primary role is not to protect the public.
That is not the primary role of any professional body.
But part of the role of any professional body is to ensure that the public do not get "ripped off "
And if a member is called before a disciplinary board,he should remember the word "respect"
If he is unable to do so,it is about time that he handed in his membership or was booted out.
Strike Barry Hart off