Professor Lois Surgenor1, Professor Kate Diesfeld2, Dr Marta Rychert3, Ms Olivia Kelly4, Dr Kate Kersey5
1University of Otago, Christchurch, Department of Psychological Medicine, PO Box 4345, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand, 2Auckland University of Technology, School of Public Health and Interdisciplinary Studies, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 0627, New Zealand, 3Massey University, SHORE & Whariki Research Centre, Private Bag 11 222 Palmerston North, 4442, New Zealand, 4Auckland University of Technology, School of Public Health and Interdisciplinary Studies, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 0627, New Zealand, 5University of Auckland, Centre for Addiction Research Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Private Bag 92019 Auckland Mail Centre, Auckland 1142 New Zealand
Abstract:
Compelling arguments exist for using rehabilitation-focused penalty conditions (e.g., educative actions, supervision, health assessments/interventions) following professional misconduct. Rehabilitation is beneficial for practitioners and society, also reducing the risk of future misconduct.1-2 Further, failure to consider rehabilitation has been described as leaving a disciplinary body’s “job largely undone”.3 This presentation reviews decisions by New Zealand’s (NZ) Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (LCDT) between 2018-2022 (N = 94), comparing disciplinary outcomes received by NZ health practitioners (n = 119) and teachers (n = 325) over the same time period. It describes types of misconduct and penalties imposed, analysing whether the decisions included reference to rehabilitative principles in determining penalties. Significantly fewer LCDT decisions referred to rehabilitation (30.7%; p<.001) compared with disciplined health practitioners (94.9%) and teachers (72.0%). The LCDT rarely applied conditions (16%; p<.001) when compared with health practitioners (64.7%) and teachers (68.6%). Lawyers before the LCDT were also significantly more likely to have been disciplined before (50%; p<.001) compared with health practitioners (5.6%) and teachers (6.7%). Adopting rehabilitation as a standard penalty principle when disciplining lawyers may increase the use of restorative penalty conditions, thereby promoting the well-being and future professionalism of these practitioners, in turn reducing future public risk.
1 Stemwedel, J.D. (2014) Life after misconduct: Promoting rehabilitation while minimising damage. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education,14, 177-180.
2 Plaut, M. (2001). Sexual misconduct by health professionals: Rehabilitation of offenders. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 16(1), 7-13. DOI: 10.1080/14681990125420
3 Auckland Standards Committee v O’Boyle [2021] NZLCDT 27) [17]).