The Strange Case of Auckland Lawyer Benjamin Wong
Benjamin Wong has been struck off the rolls by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal for an extensive scheme of forgery and client deception spanning nearly two years – and yet there was no apparent benefit to Wong in any of the misdeeds.
>> A new job? Check the latest law jobs on LawFuel’s network
The tribunal described his conduct as “bizarre” while legal counsel called it “probably the most serious client deception case the tribunal has seen in its existence.”
Wong admitted to creating a sophisticated web of false documents. These included a forged judge’s minute, signatures of court officials and another lawyer, fabricated invoices, and nonexistent court case numbers. He maintained this deception with his client for approximately two years while claiming to progress a legal matter.
When pressed about the case, Wong regularly created excuses. “No date yet, but I have sent the Court a follow-up this morning. Hopefully, it’s just a delay with the post,” he told his client in one email. Later communications blamed delays on “a bit of a joke with the court system.”
Both the District and High Court confirmed Wong had never filed any proceedings.
Puzzling Motivation
The tribunal expressed bewilderment at Wong’s inability to explain his actions. “We’re kind of left open-mouthed I suppose,” said Deputy Chairman Dr. John Adams. “There must be something that causes a person to do a thing. And our problem is we don’t know what it is.”
Wong claimed he couldn’t remember committing the forgeries. His own counsel conceded it was “extremely odd behavior” with “no benefit to him whatsoever.”
Prosecution counsel Paul Collins suggested the only plausible explanation might be “some sort of phobia in engaging with the courts,” but acknowledged this was speculation.
The tribunal ultimately determined that striking Wong from the rolls was the only appropriate sanction. While noting that Wong might pursue “something productive in the future,” the tribunal was clear that a return to legal practice was not possible.
