A Samoan lawyer was ordered to pay $66,000 by a New Zealand tribunal for failing to provide adequate advice to a client, disclosing confidential information about him on a radio broadcast and threatening him with a lawsuit.

Auckland-based lawyer Leuluaiali’i Olinda Woodroffe, who practises law in New Zealand and Samoa, was acting for a Samoan client who resides in New Zealand in a case concerning family land in Samoa.

According to reports, the client engaged Woodroffe in February 2015 and in July 2016, a statement of claim was filed in the Supreme Court of Samoa.

In October 2019, when Woodroffe informed the client that he would need to pay $35,000 as security for costs, the client immediately told her to take no further action.

In September 2020, the client wrote to Woodroffe, saying he had not understood he might be asked to pay security for costs, nor had she informed him of that. He asked her to file a memo of discontinuance in the court.

Woodroffe replied days later, telling him: “Your accusations are defamatory and false,” and “Security for costs matters have been explained to you, in Samoan many times, and letters confirming these issues are sent to you in the language of the Court, namely, English.”

Three days later, in her regular Sunday slot on Radio Samoa, Woodroffe spoke about the case and referred to the client in a manner he felt was derogatory.

In November 2020, the client wrote to the Supreme Court of Samoa to say he had never heard the term “Security for Cost”, nor had Woodroffe informed him of this.

Upon learning of this, Woodroffe emailed her client that, unless he wrote to the court declaring his statement untrue, she would launch a defamation suit against him.

He complained to the Law Society about Woodroffe in December 2020.

In January this year, the tribunal found that Woodroffe had failed to advise her client about security for costs, had abused her position as a lawyer by retaliating against him on radio, and had acted disproportionately by threatening him with a lawsuit.

The tribunal noted that Woodroffe hadn’t produced a letter to show she had provided any advice to her client about security for costs.

The tribunal found that Woodroffe’s lack of advice to her client deprived him of an opportunity to weigh all relevant circumstances, and in her comments on radio she “described him as arrogant and she imputed sexist attitudes to his failure to accept her advice to push on with the case”.

Her threat to launch legal action against him “was bullying behaviour, at odds with how a lawyer should treat their client”, the tribunal said.

The tribunal said Woodroffe’s threat to launch legal action against her client “was bullying behaviour, at odds with how a lawyer should treat their client”.

“An aggravating characteristic of Mrs Woodroffe’s conduct is the ongoing force and repetition of her aggression towards her client… Not only did her client suffer disadvantage from lack of relevant legal advice, she attacked him for having complained about it and treated him as if he was the wrong-doer,” it said.

The tribunal noted that Woodroffe had seven previous disciplinary files between 2014 and 2025, each of which involved at least one finding of unsatisfactory conduct.

“Three findings relate to overcharging. The other findings relate to other types of unsatisfactory conduct where Mrs Woodroffe’s combative style of dealing with clients and others emerges as a theme.”

The tribunal said Woodroffe showed no insight, failed to accept responsibility for her wrongdoing, showed no remorse, and no empathy.

The tribunal noted that Woodroffe had seven previous disciplinary files between 2014 and 2025, each of which involved at least one finding of unsatisfactory conduct.

It noted that Woodroffe had stated: “I’m not going to accept any penalty”, and that she was concerned about her reputation, fearing the outcome of the case would encourage other clients to dispute her bills.

“We accept that Mrs Woodroffe has taken socially prominent positions in support of worthy causes. But none of these matters of character and constitution can have much impact on our penalty decision in this fact-specific set of circumstances,” the tribunal said.

Woodroffe was censured for failing to advise a client about his risk of security for costs, for disclosing confidential matters on a radio broadcast that were recognisable to some listeners, and for being disrespectful and threatening to her client.

She was ordered to refund $10,000 to the client as well as cancelling his unpaid fees of $5082.

She was further ordered to pay a fine of $10,000 to the New Zealand Law Society, and to pay the Auckland Standards Committee costs of $34,712, plus a further $11,337 to cover the tribunal costs.

The total amount she must pay was $66,049.

Woodroffe has appealed the decision to the High Court, telling Stuff the tribunal was “totally biased”.

Woodroffe has appealed the tribunal’s decision to the High Court.

“I will never give up,” Woodroffe said. “They’ve misconstrued everything I said and there’s an element of sexism and racism and breaches of human rights in the decision.

“No way would I pay $66,000. It’s the highest I’ve ever known in 35 years, and that shows they’re racist.

“They expected me to be a Samoan woman and to say yes to what they said.”