Attorney Lynette O’Boyle said her client was concerned that her former partner was using government resources to hack social media. Photo / 123rf
Veteran lawyers mistakenly accused senior ministry managers of using government resources to hack clients’ social media and block proceedings in a fierce family court proceeding.
After 30 years of practice and working in the public sector as the current ministry lawyer for Orangata Maliki, he was convicted of illegal activity by a lawyer and carrier disciplinary court over a June 2018 letter.
The letter sent to the three government departments and the Privacy Commissioner arrived after Oboyle’s client lost a provisional childcare case with her former partner, Mr. C, due to a permanent repression order. ..
According to a referee’s decision released this week, Mr. C had informed litigation aids of “two important facts” that endangered Oboyle’s client grants. An anonymous client complained to police, claiming that Mr. C could have hacked his Facebook Messenger account to obtain legal assistance and the information he provided to the court.
Oboyle then asked Mr. C to provide certain electronic communications on suspicion of hacking and sent a letter to his employer, the chief executive officer of the government sector. Its name is also suppressed.
The letter suggests that Mr. C and his new partner, Mr. P, used the department’s device to hack O’Boyle’s client’s social media accounts. Whangārei’s lawyer also copied the original letter to two other government departments, each with a cover letter suggesting that the recipient could be Mr. P’s employer.
O’Boyle’s claim went a step further as one of the identified IP addresses mistakenly claimed to “also accessed my computer.”
She then copied the original letter to a government office commissioned to protect Kiwi’s personal information.
“My client believes that, as a matter of public interest, public service employees who use government devices need to use these devices only for proper use, so a copy of this letter. Is forwarded to the Privacy Commissioner, “the letter read.
O’Boyle also warned Mr. C’s employer about alleged criminal activity on the device.
“If the ministry confirms or otherwise obtains information, the ministry will be notified. [Mr C] Used ministry equipment to access [the client’s] The information was then forwarded to legal aid using that information. [XXXX] The problem will be referred to the police. “
However, neither Mr. C nor Mr. P’s employer replied that none of the IP addresses provided by O’Boyle were associated with it and that they were not improperly using the work equipment.
Oboyle’s allegations against Mr. C included an allegation that he “lied to the court and perhaps to your employer” about “his criminal offenses and other issues.”
However, although Mr. C faced four indictments in 2009, he was not convicted of criminal charges because he was dismissed without conviction and was granted permanent name repression.
In response to the Standards Commission’s investigation, Oboyle reiterated her version of Mr. C’s alleged crime. However, when the Standards Commission obtained a memorandum of evidence from the court, it confirmed Mr. C’s credibility in what he had told the court and was inconsistent with Oboyle.
At a referee hearing in late March, Oboyle also provided evidence of the client’s instructions, saying he felt great pressure to write to Mr. C’s employer.
She said her client “screamed, yelled” and “foamed” into her office.
Oboyle claimed that the client said: “He was charged, you know, he lied to his employer, I’m sick of it, I want you to deal with this.
“He removed something from my Facebook.”
A few days later, Oboyle added, the client returned and “she was determined that she wanted blood.”
O’Boyle described the family court file as “causing me great anxiety” and was a “fierce dispute.”
“This is a legal aid file and they are exhausted,” Oboyle said in her evidence.
“I can say it wasn’t malicious. It was just a situation where I wanted to deal with the fire and move. Frankly, I’m so frankly, of the legal aid you don’t care about. Sufficient for clients when dealing with clients. “
However, in that decision, the referee showed little sympathy for Oboyle.
Neither that nor O’Boyle said they had direct evidence that the client’s Facebook account was hacked.
“Even if a client’s account is improperly accessed through four IP addresses in central Wellington, it’s a weak basis for a strong barrage targeting three government sectors and was escalated by her report. It was. [via a copy of the original letter] To the Privacy Commissioner. “
The court also added that Oboyle deliberately and falsely claimed that her computer had been accessed to appear to have “very strong evidence” of the link she was looking for.
“The exaggerations and falsehoods contained in the demand for information have been found to reflect Ms. Oboyle’s professionalism.”
According to the court, the idea of sending a letter was formed in a heated atmosphere fueled by anger and embarrassment.
“I don’t admit that Ms. O’Boyle simply sent an offensive part of the letter to remove the client’s request. It turns out that Ms. O’Boyle actively participated in potentially harmful communications. “
Oboyle “lost her grasp of her proper professional role,” and failed to give clients the guidance and judgment that the public could expect from a reasonably competent lawyer, the court said.
“This is especially important for issues that clients sometimes have, such as family law.
It overheats and becomes rude.Instead of staying within her proper professional role, at arm length from her client, Ms. Oboyle
Mr. Oboyle knew that Mr. C had been dismissed without being convicted in the 2009 indictment, but said he “had information to generate false and harmful reasoning against Mr. C.” It was.
“Ms. Oboyle knew from her experience that her letter was sent to him and caused problems for Mr. C in his employment. Recognizing the significance of this finding. , She turns out to be either deliberately either. She intended to do such harm to him and Ms. P, or she was reckless about its possible foreseeable consequences. “
The referee determined that Oboyle’s “shotgun approach” was reckless and that her cumulative actions were reasonably considered “shameful” by a good lawyer.
“The distinction between this case is intended to harm the self-proclaimed party of the other party in an unrelated area. Lies, intentional or reckless claims and ranges of reasoning, toxic substance scatterers, checking substances or yourself. Reckless failure to ask questions Sources before making such a powerful attack support this. If these features are not taken into account, the general public’s confidence in the profession in general. Decreases. “
The referee instructed Oboyle to hold a penalties hearing at a later date.
Lawyers mistakenly accused senior government officials of hacking a client’s Facebook account
SourceLawyers mistakenly accused senior government officials of hacking a client’s Facebook account