Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsiTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Former New Zealand lawyer Kelly Anne Jamieson was censured by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal after accepting a misconduct charge over misleading her employer about bereavement leave and submitting a falsified obituary. The New Zealand Law Society says the Tribunal viewed the misconduct as being at the lower end of the spectrum, but concluded that a censure was still necessary.
Why did Kelly Anne Jamieson create a fake obituary?
After Jamieson took time off, her firm asked for more information about her absence. She then supplied a falsified obituary for her sister-in-law, who had died approximately two years earlier, according to the New Zealand Law Society’s account. The summary does not give exact dates or explain Jamieson’s personal reason for taking the leave.
The firm discovered that the obituary was false and confronted her. Jamieson admitted the misconduct and resigned. She later accepted a misconduct charge before the Tribunal.
Recommended Free Tools
Why did the Tribunal consider the misconduct lower-end?
The Tribunal’s assessment, as reported by the Law Society, rested in part on the short period over which the conduct occurred and Jamieson’s acknowledgment of the lie when challenged. “Lower end” describes the Tribunal’s assessment of this particular misconduct; it does not mean the conduct was acceptable or establish a general penalty for dishonesty cases.
#1 Best Overall
The Law Society summary, updated October 1, 2026, says the Tribunal regarded honesty and integrity as essential to legal practice. It reported the Tribunal’s statement that “anything less than absolute integrity and honesty in a legal practitioner is unacceptable.”
What circumstances did the Tribunal take into account?
The Law Society account identifies several mitigating features:
- Jamieson self-reported the matter to the Law Society.
- She showed insight and remorse and cooperated with the disciplinary process.
- She had a clean disciplinary history and sought professional help.
- The account says no client was harmed.
The Tribunal also said constructive engagement with disciplinary proceedings can count in mitigation. As the Law Society reported its words: “we consider that lawyers also need the message that if they engage openly and positively with the various forms of the disciplinary process, that this will be regarded by the Tribunal as demonstrating insight and reliability and is therefore mitigatory.”
What penalty did the Tribunal impose?
The Tribunal censured Jamieson and ordered her to contribute to costs. The Law Society says the Tribunal considered a financial penalty unnecessary to deter others. Its summary does not state the costs amount, and the order should not be described as a fine.
The available official summary does not provide the case number, hearing date, formal decision date or itemized costs. It also does not establish Jamieson’s current practising-register status.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
