Auckland-based criminal defense lawyer Keam, managing director of Keam Law, has been censured by a tribunal for his conduct toward a client. The incident stemmed from a meeting on March 14, during which Keam “became frustrated” and “berated” his client with “offensive names,” despite having previously accepted the client’s decision to seek new representation.
A Declined Application to Withdraw as Counsel
The situation arose after Keam’s client informed him he no longer wished to be represented by Keam a week before a jury trial. Even as Keam initially agreed to withdraw, the court declined his request. A text message was sent to the client inviting him to a meeting, and he unexpectedly appeared at Keam Law’s office.
The tribunal heard that Keam had expressed feeling “somewhat more invested” in this client than usual, believing the man was at risk of imprisonment but likewise possessing “a good deal of potential.” However, during the meeting, Keam delivered a “moralising lecture” to the client.
Keam promptly apologized for his behavior over the weekend following the meeting. The tribunal acknowledged this as an “isolated incident” and commended Keam for accepting responsibility. Despite this, the tribunal censured Keam for breaching the professional obligation to treat clients with respect, particularly given the client’s vulnerable position facing criminal charges.
Keam offered $5000 in compensation for the emotional harm caused to his client, which the tribunal accepted as appropriate, noting that higher compensation amounts were reserved for more serious offenses like assault or harassment. Keam is also required to reimburse the New Zealand Law Society for the tribunal’s costs, with a 25% discount applied due to his cooperation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the tribunal’s censure of Keam?
The tribunal censured Keam for berating his client and using offensive language during a meeting on March 14, breaching the professional obligation to treat clients with respect.
Did Keam dispute the tribunal’s findings?
No, Keam accepted responsibility for his conduct and apologized to his client, and cooperated with the tribunal’s process.
What financial penalties did Keam face?
Keam was ordered to pay $5000 in compensation to his client and reimburse the New Zealand Law Society for the tribunal’s costs, with a 25% discount applied to the latter.
Given the importance of the attorney-client relationship, how might this case influence legal professionals’ approaches to managing difficult client interactions?
