You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.
Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.

Helpful search tips:

  • If you are looking for a specific decision with a forward slash in the title (eg, 123/2014), you will need to replace the forward slash with a space (eg, 123 2014), as the website cannot pick up on forward slashes (/) or any other characters.
  • If you are doing a keyword search (eg. misconduct), please note that this search will only produce decisions where the keyword appears in the title or decision description. If you want to search the entire decision document for certain keywords, you will need to use full website search located in the top right hand corner of this page.
  • If you want to search for a decision from a particular jurisdiction using the full website search, put both the jurisdiction name and the keyword in the search field (eg, LCRO misconduct).
Search results

1271 items matching your search terms

  1. LCRO 42/2021 JKL Limited v HC and GD (30 August 2021) [PDF, 277 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / commercial transaction / complaint lawyer had close relationship with other party to transaction and disclosed confidential information in attempting to establish a business relationship / also, improperly served a statutory demand for lawyers’ fees / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.3 / rule 5 / rule 8 / HELD / hearsay evidence submitted to support conflict of interest and disclosure of confidential information complaints / hearsay insufficient to substantiate complaint / complainant’s concern law firm victimised lawyer unsubstantiated and speculative, not a basis to avoid contractual fees / statutory demand issued for proper purpose and complainant accepted, then defaulted on debt and payment plan / no evidence fee complaint demonstrates lawyers duplicated invoiced work / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  2. LCRO 27/2021 BK v RQ (27 August 2021) [PDF, 223 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / estate matter / complaint lawyer did not maintain proper standards of professionalism, did not act competently or in a timely manner, and did not respond to requests for information in a timely manner / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / rule 9.1 / HELD / complaint by estate beneficiary / a lawyer instructed by an executor owes the executor client-duties / executor is responsible to court and beneficiaries for proper implementation of will / lawyer’s obligations more limited than executors / executor sought indemnity prior to distribution and lawyer was obliged to follow instructions / matter progressed in a timely manner / fee fair and reasonable / no evidence of instructions to delegate work to legal executive to lower fees / section 211(1)(a)
  3. LCRO 15/2021 JBC Limited v KD (24 August 2021) [PDF, 209 KB]

    Review / Committee declined to take further action / subdivision consent and easement / complaint lawyer not competent in advising complainant to take judicial review proceedings, did not raise relevant matters in the proceedings, and did not advise on litigation risk / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 7.1 / VM v XZ [2020] NZLCRO 216 / HELD / lawyer advised complainant of litigation risk and discretionary nature of judicial review / indication law was “well-settled” by judge / no evidence lawyer’s arguments lacked merit / representation was meticulous / adverse costs order cannot be considered part of lawyer’s fee in fee complaint / comparison between fees and High Court Rules scale a useful starting point, but not a determinative factor / applicable test for fees is in rule 9 and 9.1 / Committee’s superficial fee analysis must be returned to the Committee for first instance determination / section 209 / Committee…
  4. LCRO 114/2021 DY v WJ (20 August 2021) [PDF, 152 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / inquiries made by counsel to judge / complaint lawyer asked inappropriate question about witness’s gender / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 10 / HELD / professional disciplinary bodies have important role in regulating conduct demonstrating prejudice / not persuaded lawyer’s question to judge was, in context, unprofessional, discourteous or disrespectful / no reasonable cause of action / application for review struck out / section 205(1)(a)
  5. LCRO 80/2019 ZB v YC (18 August 2021) [PDF, 204 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / in-house counsel in insolvency firms and insolvency proceedings / complaint in-house lawyer provided regulated services to the public, and the lawyer failed to inform the court of available defences and material facts / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 13 / rule 13.1 / HELD / in-house counsel complaint being pursued as an own-motion inquiry by Committee as complainant lacks sufficient personal interest / complainant’s wish to receive Committee’s ruling for business purposes insufficient to establish personal interest, amounts to legal advice / LCRO does not have jurisdiction to determine correctness of contested litigation issue / concerns in complaint addressed in High Court decision / complaints process not an alternative form to relitigate matters / presiding judicial officer should raise issue about potential lapse / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  6. LCRO 106/2021 TH v QA (17 August 2021) [PDF, 149 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / conveyancing transaction / complaint opposing party’s lawyer obtained and used personal information about complainant unethically or unlawfully / also, increased costs of litigation, claimed excessive and unreasonable costs, and attempted to influence a witness / HELD / no credible or cogent evidence to support serious allegations made / theft of personal information concern should be addressed by Police or Privacy Commissioner / improper cross-examination complaint within jurisdiction of presiding judicial officer and should have been argued at the time / no criticism from presiding judicial officer regarding lawyer’s conduct / bias allegation about Committee members not substantiated / abuse of process / application for review struck out / section 205(1)(d)
  8. LCRO 112/2019 EQ v XD (30 July 2021) [PDF, 162 KB]

    Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / conveyancing transaction / complaint lawyer failed to act competently and in a timely manner, and treat complainant with respect and courtesy / also, conveyancing work completed negligently and in conflict of interest / Saxmere Co Ltd v New Zealand Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd [2009] NZSC 72 / HELD / procedural irregularity / Committee member was friends with lawyer / Committee member identified and declared conflict from the outset, but adopted a wait-and-see approach / involvement more than a disinterested or distanced observer / circumstances do not satisfy Saxmere test / another Committee directed to reconsider and determine whole complaint / section 209
  9. LCRO 211/2020 BU - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (30 July 2021) [PDF, 233 KB]

    Committee referred conduct complaint to Disciplinary Tribunal / allegation of misconduct regarding content of apology ordered by LCRO / Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZCA 230 / Zhao v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 2622 / EB: Application for Review of a Prosecutorial Decision LCRO 110/2017 / HELD / Committee not required to provide reasons for prosecutorial decision / no basis to claim apology was to be reviewed by LCRO for acceptability before being sent to complainant / apology provocative / Committee reasonable to determine apology raised legitimate disciplinary issues / no reason to interfere with referral / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  10. LCRO 68/2021 BU - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (30 July 2021) [PDF, 190 KB]

    Committee referred conduct complaint to Disciplinary Tribunal / allegation of misconduct regarding undisbursed estate funds and delay / Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZCA 230 / Zhao v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 2622 / EB: Application for Review of a Prosecutorial Decision LCRO 110/2017 / HELD / lawyer’s argument conduct referred to Tribunal has already been determined in prior disciplinary proceedings not substantiated / matters not sufficiently similar / continuing delay in finalising estate not explained by continuing issues in resolving previous adverse conduct findings relating to trust account management / no prejudice / steps to finalise estate simple / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  11. LCRO 216/2020 YH v DP (29 July 2021) [PDF, 176 KB]

    Review / Committee declined to take further action / litigation fees / complaint lawyer was not efficient, legal fees exceeded recovery, and did not invoice in accordance with terms of engagement / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, reg 29 / VM v XZ [2020] NZLCRO 216 / HELD / Committee incorrectly applied reg 29 / only reviewed last nine months of fees / Committee’s fee complaint analysis was superficial and proceeded only on the basis of the complaint and the response / Committee directed to reconsider complaint / section 209
  12. LCRO 76/2020 FV v GT (23 July 2021) [PDF, 269 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / tax liability and liquidation proceedings / complaint lawyer did not competently communicate or negotiate with IRD, or advise about liquidation proceedings, and failed to appear in court when instructed / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 4.2 / HELD / jurisdiction / application accepted outside of prescribed time limit under COVID-19 relief legislative discretion in earlier Minute / challenge to earlier Minute must proceed by way of judicial review / negotiation with IRD required complainant to secure funds / IRD not persuaded to further defer liquidation proceedings / no substantive defence / not satisfied lawyer’s retainer limited to negotiations / complainant had reasonable expectation lawyer would attend court / technical and inconsequential breach of rule 4.2 / lawyer did not contribute to inevitable outcome / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  14. LCRO 92/2021 AZ v BY (19 July 2021) [PDF, 134 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / estate matter / complaint about estate lawyer’s implementation of Deed of Family Arrangement / HELD / extent of Committee’s inquiry into a complaint is a matter of discretion for the Committee / not a function of professional disciplinary process to resolve dispute over interpretation of Deed or closely supervise lawyer undertaking work related to the Deed / complainant’s questions can be tested and resolved in an adversarial process / abuse of process / application for review struck out / section 205(1)(d)
  17. LCRO 78/2020 NS v GL (29 June 2021) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Review / Committee declined to take further action / family law proceedings / complaint lawyer did not advise complainant against not responding to a request for an undertaking in lieu of applying for a protection order / J v Auckland Standards Committee 1 [2018] NZHC 2706 / Woods v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2013] NZHC 674 / Gilbert v Shanahan [1998] 3 NZLR 528 (CA) / YR v OS LCRO 3/2019 / HELD / client was prepared to acquiesce to request outlined in undertaking, but did not want to respond / lawyer was aware of consequences of obtaining protection order but did not advise against non-response strategy / protection order applied for / failed to protect and promote client’s interests / Committee’s decision reversed / unsatisfactory conduct found pursuant to s 12(a) / section 211(1)(a)
  18. LCRO 1/2020 NR v YB (28 June 2021) [PDF, 150 KB]

    Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / civil proceedings / review of penalty determination / complaint lawyer did not advise client of hourly rate increase, cost of phone calls, and added 2015 work to a 2018 invoice, and did not return deposit after client terminated retainer / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3.6 / rule 9.6 / HELD / lawyer cannot demonstrate client advised of hourly rate increase / delay in issuing invoice caused no harm / no evidence fees relate to work not done / shortcomings relatively minor in context / $4,000 fine and censure orders accepted as disproportionate, even in context of prior disciplinary history / Committee’s decision modified by reversing censure order, and reducing fine to $1,000 / section 211(1)(a)
  19. LCRO 239/2020 DP v FJ obo RK (25 June 2021) [PDF, 356 KB]

    Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / immigration applications / complaint lawyer failed to provide clear, not misleading information about fees and services / charged fees that were not fair and reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 1.6 / rule 3.4 / rule 9 / rule 9.1 / HELD / Committee only provided reasons for one of four tranches of fees in fee complaint / first tranche fair and reasonable but fees agreement conflated disbursements into fee component, charging GST on disbursements exempt from GST / whether second tranche properly chargeable / fee agreement inconsistent with lawyer’s understanding, client not liable / authority to charge fourth tranche not provided in writing as required by rule 3.4, but fair and reasonable / Committee’s findings reversed in part regarding fee complaint, and modified to reduce fine to $3,500 / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a) 
  20. LCRO 122/2020 G & P LN v Todd Whitcombe and RC findings & publication decisions (4 May 2021 & 22 June 2021) [PDF, 397 KB]

    Decision as to publication of two lawyers’ names / lawyers in same firm represented both sides in property transaction / S v Wellington District Law Society [2001] NZAR 465 (HC) / Director of Proceedings v Nursing Council of New Zealand [1999] 3 NZLR 360 (HC) / Dean v Wellington District Law Society HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-2961, 26 July 2007 / Gill v Wellington District Law Society HC Wellington AP120/93, 7 December 1993 / HELD / in relation to senior lawyer, public need to know that lawyer allowed conflict of interest to develop / future clients will be able to recognise a similar situation and raise the matter / present or future employees can be guarded against being placed in same position as junior lawyer / publication of name ordered / in relation to junior lawyer, they are now aware to be on high alert against being placed in same situation / no publication order
  22. LCRO 186/2019 ZU v FD (15 June 2021) [PDF, 246 KB]

    Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / will matter / lawyer acted as co-executor / complaint lawyer did not disclose information, did not act in a timely manner, and provided incompetent advice / HELD / jurisdiction / Committee’s advice on its initial determinations did not constitute a notice of determination / lawyer provided regulated services when passing on legal advice to co-executor / advice to co-executor not incompetent / lawyer’s co-executor refused to consent to distribution of estate / executor not entitled to act unilaterally / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a) 
  23. LCRO 66/2021 OW v HP (11 June 2021) [PDF, 116 KB]

    Complaint / Committee found it lacked jurisdiction / complaint lawyer’s fees not fair and reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, reg 29 / HELD / jurisdiction to assess fee complaint requires “special circumstances” as fee does not exceed $2,000 / no special circumstances found on review / terms of engagement permitted the involvement of more than one lawyer / no evidence hourly rate abnormally or uncommonly high / fee indicative of work completed / application for review discloses no reasonable course of action / application for review struck out / section 205(1)(a) 
  24. LCRO 220/2020 UOY - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (3 June 2021) [PDF, 225 KB]

    Committee referred conduct complaint to Disciplinary Tribunal / allegation of misconduct regarding trust funds / Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZCA 230 / Zhao v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 2622 / HELD / Committees not required to provide reasons for prosecutorial decisions / no threshold test for prosecutorial decisions / lawyer has not yet been served with charges / as a matter of fairness, providing a copy of charges should occur within a short space of time of issuing notice of determination / notice of hearing adequately notified lawyer of Committee’s misconduct concern / lawyer’s request to have matter referred back to Committee so they can obtain relevant documents declined / time to obtain documents was upon receiving Committee’s notice of hearing / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a) 
  25. LCRO 125/2019 AB v CD and EF (3 June 2021) [PDF, 238 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / will matter / complaint lawyer represented two clients and did not verify affidavit / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6.1 / rule 8.1 / rule 8.7 / rule 10.2 / Black v Taylor [1993] 3 NZLR 403 (CA) / HELD / conflict of interest / lawyers acted for two clients when their interests coincided / when interests diverged, clients instructed separate lawyers / lawyers could not contact complainant directly for consent / complainant’s lawyers did not raise objection / no breach of rule 6.1 / confidential information / personal characteristics / not clear “insights” into personal characteristics are confidential / no characteristic identified that would provide advantage / other client would have been able to impart knowledge about characteristics / no breach of rules 8.7 or 8.7.1 / lawyer held corroborating evidence regarding affidavit / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)