A high-profile lawyer says he shouldn’t be struck off after invoicing a client almost $3500 for a report which could be done for free.

Christopher Tennet faced the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal today at a penalty hearing, with the hopes he can continue working as a lawyer.

At a hearing last year Tennet faced a charge of professional misconduct when he invoiced a “vulnerable client” for a report, to the tune of $3450.

He later claimed he had no intention of receiving the funds and accepted his conduct was unsatisfactory.

The charge was proven and Tennet, a Wellington lawyer with almost four decades of experience in criminal law, will know the fate of his career when a decision is released by the tribunal in the coming weeks.

The case against Tennet dated back to 2017, when he attempted to get his vulnerable client to pay an invoice of $3450 for a privately obtained drug and alcohol report needed in her upcoming sentencing.

Tennet invoiced the amount to his client when the actual cost would have been $1200, however, such an assessment could be done for free through the courts.

When a report was organised free of charge at a later date for the woman, it was that report writer who complained about Tennet’s conduct.

The invoice was found to be false by the tribunal and an attempt to lever money from the woman, who has permanent name suppression.

She was the partner of a well-known criminal, a man who had been a client of Tennet’s in the past.

She was assaulted by her partner, the man she relied on to pay her legal fees, just days before the misconduct.

As a result Tennet withdrew as her lawyer claiming a conflict of interest.

Lawyer Matthew Mortimer-Wong, acting on behalf of the Wellington Standards Committee which brought the charge against Tennet, submitted the experienced lawyer should be struck off for his conduct.

“Strike off should be in play,” Mortimer-Wong told the tribunal.

Tennet said he never expected the client to pay the false invoice, however, Mortimer-Wong said this was not an excuse for dishonest conduct.

“To come and say but I never expected them to pay, it’s not an answer, it’s a minimisation,” he said.

“She was a vulnerable client who was badly let down.”

Mortimer-Wong said it was a question of how Tennet conducted himself with vulnerable clients, and if that conduct would be ethical in the future.

Lawyer Warren Pyke, acting on behalf of Tennet, said his client shouldn’t be struck off but should face a penalty of supervision by more senior practitioners.

Tennet, who at the time of the misconduct had worked as a lawyer for 35 years, did not have any misconduct in his past, and his actions in 2017 were out of character, Pyke told the tribunal.

Pyke said Tennet had spent his career working with clients who could be considered vulnerable.

“He’s now accepted he shouldn’t have done it. He’s now taken full responsibility,” Pyke said.

“He’s seeing through a different lens now.”

Pyke called Tennet to give evidence at the beginning of today’s hearing, where the lawyer claimed if he was to stop working he would suffer financial hardship, including the inability to pay his rent.

While giving evidence Tennet brought up his commitment to his clients and reassured the tribunal he would do right by them if he was to continue as a lawyer.

The tribunal heard evidence Tennet was in a “volatile relationship” for several years which put stress on him and his personal life at the time of his misconduct.

Deputy chairperson John Adams said the sole concern of the tribunal was Tennet’s dishonesty and the fact he lied to a client.

During the hearing, tribunal member Hector Matthews questioned how Tennet’s “moral compass” would ensure he can work in the best interests of vulnerable clients in the future if he can continue to work.

“They are often the voices that are not heard and rely on professions like lawyers to be their voices,” Matthews said.

The tribunal has reserved its decision which will be released at a later date.

-Hazel Osborne, Open Justice