Julian Chevalier tried to remove his former legal adviser from an employment dispute, but New Zealand’s Court of Appeal decided a lawyer’s assurances were sufficient to reject the request.

In late 2024, Chevalier contacted a Whanganui firm, Horsley Christie, for help against his employer, Necta NZ Ltd. On 11 December, he sent a Google Drive folder containing draft pleadings and case notes he called his “litigation strategy.”

A partner, John Unsworth, was notified. A legal assistant phoned Chevalier and explained a retainer was necessary. Chevalier never paid, and the firm said it could not assist at that stage.

On 6 January 2025, he sent another email detailing key issues and evidence. The firm again refused to act. Eight months later, Necta announced Unsworth would represent it in the same dispute.

Employment Court accepts assurances

Chevalier asked the Employment Court to remove Unsworth and Horsley Christie. The court refused, accepting Unsworth’s statement that neither he nor anyone at the firm had opened the Google Drive folder. It also pointed out Chevalier could revoke access, withdraw his 6 January email, and instruct the firm not to use it.

The court found no real risk of misuse and saw no violation of rule 8.8 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. That rule prevents lawyers from acting against someone if they hold relevant confidential information.

Related: What Questions Should I Ask a Criminal Justice Attorney Before Hiring?

Appeal court rejects leave

Chevalier applied for leave to appeal, arguing the Employment Court used the wrong legal test and overlooked important details. He also claimed the court damaged the appearance of justice by allowing Unsworth to stay while his sworn statements remained part of the record.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. It stated the correct test was whether a real risk of misuse existed, and the lower court was right to accept Unsworth’s evidence.

The appeal court also rejected Chevalier’s argument about rule 8.8, noting the rule was only one factor in the assessment. It added that a lawyer could act against someone who had made inquiries but never became a client, as long as no confidential information was shared or used.

The request for leave to appeal was denied.

The case hinged on whether a lawyer’s word alone could resolve a confidentiality dispute. The courts concluded it could, as long as the lawyer had not actually received or used the disputed information.

Unsworth continues to represent Necta in the ongoing dispute.