Search Results

1. LCRO 74/2017 SD v TM (31 January 2019) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...account the consumer purposes of the Act, to afford protection to the public where considered necessary. [100] The Committee ordered publication of its decision without “details that might lead to the identification of any of the parties”. [101] Ms QW submits that Mr TM “has not previously been found to have breached professional standards” during “almost 30 years of practice”. [102] Taking that into account, a direction of publication of an anonymised summary of the C...

2. LCRO 233/2014 IB v KZ (27 June 2018) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...detachment that must at all times inform their instructions to their client. [100] Having concluded that the comment was unsatisfactory, I turn my attention to the question as to whether the comment was deserving of a disciplinary response. [101] I am mindful that Standards Committees are made up of experienced practitioners and lay persons, who bring a considered and careful approach to determining complaints. Having found myself in agreement with the Committee’s conclusion...

3. LCRO 024/2018 NN v AE (23 April 2019) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...action on a complaint can be exercised legitimately in a wide range of circumstances, including those which would justify taking no action under s 138(1) and (2). It is not confined to circumstances where there is no basis for the complaint at all. [101] That position was affirmed in Chapman v The Legal Complaints Review Officer where the Court noted that:26 … it appears to me that the LCRO may have assumed that her finding of unsatisfactory conduct inevitably led to the setting a...

4. LCRO 220/2016 UT v LE (18 December 2018) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...compensation, and substituted with the order that Mr UT cancel his fee of $2,000 and refund that money to Mrs LE by the 22nd day of February 2019: s 156(1)(f), (g) (d) Modified by inserting the order that Mr UT be censured: s 156(1)(b)) (c) Costs [101] Where an adverse finding is made, costs will be awarded in accordance with the Costs Orders Guidelines of this Office. It follows that Mr UT is ordered to pay costs in the sum of $1,200 to the New Zealand Law Society by the 22nd d...

5. Protection order applications December 2020 [xlsx, 91 KB]

   ...years 15 31 48 60 65 57 49 34 38 30 4% 5% 6% 6% 7% 5% 5% 3% 4% 3% 20 to 29 years 114 218 317 321 299 349 312 307 281 293 29% 32% 39% 34% 31% 31% 29% 29% 28% 26% 30 to 39 years 61 114 165 157 172 202 209 196 202 226 15% 17% 20% 17% 18% 18% 19% 18% 20% 20% 40 to 49 years 36 83 90 97 92 129 113 116 101 137 9% 12% 11% 10% 10% 12% 11% 11% 10% 12% 50 years or more 22 35 34 67 53 73 65 83 77 63 6% 5% 4% 7% 5% 7% 6% 8% 8% 6% Unknown 147 196 160 239 283 306 326 327 315 363 37% 29% 20% 25% 29%...

6. [2021] NZACC 5 - Andrews v ACC (12 January 2021) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...noted by a number of clinicians. [100] He submits that Dr Anderson has failed to test the appellant’s account with existing contemporaneous evidence and assessments. 3 Accident Compensation Corporation v Mehrtens [2012] NZACC 250. [101] He notes there is a pre-existing history of headaches noted by experts including at the Burwood Clinic. He refers to Dr Fink’s conclusion: I find it difficult to attribute his chronic disability as primarily related to his minor head...

7. LCRO 87/2019 G OR v F HM (10 July 2020) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...that approach, it is my view that if Dr OR were to succeed in her claim against Mr HM in such circumstances, that could impose upon a lawyer a professional duty or obligation beyond the meaning and interpretation of r 8.8 discussed earlier. [101] I make the observation that lawyers are bound by the broader duty to “promote and maintain proper standards of professionalism in the lawyer’s dealings”, and are 27 Q v Legal Complaints...

8. UC v YW LCRO 165/2013 (30 November 2016) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...to make findings of misconduct, but in exercising the jurisdiction available to it, this Office could return the matter to the Committee for further consideration, or direct that the matters be considered by the Disciplinary Tribunal. 19 [101] But having brought, as I am required to do, an independent and robust judgement to the matter before me, I do not consider that the conduct, considered in context, is of sufficient gravity to merit a referral to the Tribunal. [102] In ta...

9. LCRO 151/2016 and 157/2016 NS v TD and TD v NS (27 September 2018) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...clear that the Committee effectively put the meeting material to one side when looking at Mr NS’ conduct in acting for two clients in one matter. It found the breach to have occurred some weeks before the round-table meeting, if not sooner. [101] It may have been preferable for the Committee to have declined to receive the meeting material as part of Mr TD’s complaint, and to have commenced an own-motion inquiry into the issue of whether Mr NS had breached r 6.1. Approaching t...

10. LCRO 135/2018 UQ v VF (26 May 2019) [pdf, 286 KB]

    ...was to blame for any delay. [100] There is no evidence at all of Mr VF acting in any sort of discriminatory or unfair way towards the UQs. Nor of any lack of respect. As I remarked earlier, his 25 October 2017 letter displayed no such signs. [101] Mr UQ takes umbrage at the suggestion by Mr VF that the UQs might wish to look elsewhere for a professional trustee for the future. I see that suggestion as reflecting no more than that matters had reached a point where it was open to M...