Search Results

1. [2025] NZREADT 10 - CAC 2105 v Chen & Stevenson & Buy West Realty Limited (14 April 2025) [pdf, 379 KB]

   ...the Committee’s legal fees are $50,000 more than the highest amount ever previously incurred by the Committee. Counsel has set out a table which summaries the external legal costs the Committee has incurred on previous misconduct charges. [101] They submit that Ms Stevenson and Buy West have been “model defendants”, insofar as they have: (a) Reported the conduct to the REA on two separate occasions. (b) Engaged fully with the Authority during its investigation (including fa...

2. LCRO 8/2024 HC v QG and VO (28 February 2025) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...partners of the law firm with whom they were associated, between current partners and former partners (of both partnerships) and between user rights derived from membership of the services partnership and personal user rights by private arrangement. [101] None of those distinctions except the last one were the company’s concern, however, as the company chairperson made clear to the respondents. They were internal matters for the services partnership, which the applicant administered...

3. LCRO 73/2024 OR v SV (3 September 2024) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...imply that the Firm would not have acted for the transferees on the transfer given that both A and I forms were addressed to the Firm’s registration agent. (g) What is the significance of the applicant’s account of the 22 January 2020 meeting? [101] The applicant’s assertion that she and Mr AE jointly instructed the respondent on 22 January 2020 regarding their joint acquisition of the Suburb 2 property from Mr AE does not appear to be consistent with the contemporaneous correspon...

4. 3-Strikes-Proactive-Release-OIA-Requests_Final_Part2.pdf [pdf, 19 MB]

   ...Feedback on three strikes Cabinet paper s9(2)(h) Page 97 of 277 The following pages (98-100) have been removed as they are withheld in full under s9(2)(f)(iv).RE LE AS ED U ND ER T HE O FF IC IA L IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82 Page 101 of 277 RE LE AS ED U ND ER T HE O FF IC IA L IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82 Page 102 of 277 RE LE AS ED U ND ER T HE O FF IC IA L IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82 Page 103 of 277 RE LE AS ED U ND ER T...

5. LCRO 156/2023 PF v NY, WJ and MQ (11 October 2024) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...Is there any evidence of any respondent bullying or harassing the applicant? [100] The correspondence from the Firm to the applicant is straightforward and professional. There is nothing in it that could be argued to be inappropriate in tone. [101] The applicant has not disclosed Ms MQ’s correspondence to him. If such correspondence was improperly expressed, I expect he would have done so. There is no information before me to support the applicant’s complaint in this regard. [...

6. LCRO 127/2024 ZU v TC, NE, GQ and Law firm A (13 June 2025) [pdf, 366 KB]

   ...support allegation that the breach alleged caused her significant financial loss. [100] It is not the case that the onus rests with [Law firm A] to quantify or explain the loss that Ms ZU said she had suffered. That obligation falls to Ms ZU. [101] Ms ZU’s efforts to elevate what was a regrettable error to the level of an egregious professional breach, depends on her establishing that the error had significant consequences for her. [102] She falls well short of providing evidenc...

7. Wellington Standards Committee v Logan [2012] NZLCDT 38 [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...misconduct arose from an assessment of the standard of conduct the subject of charges, made by the body hearing the matter, and there was no statutory definition of it,19 as in LCA. 12 Ibid, s 101(6), and this is the only disciplinary provision in LPA that actually proscribes conduct and treats a breach as an offence. 13 Section 241(a) and 7(1)(a) (2) and (3) Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. 14 Ibid, s 241(a) and s 7(1)(b)(...

8. LCRO 167/2023 UG v XY and EP (17 July 2025) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...capacity in which they have been advising him. 48 [2015] NZHC 2563. 19 [100] The scenario referred to by MacKenzie J existed in the present instance. Neither EP nor XY raised this issue with Ms UG. Did EP have the necessary expertise? [101] In her complaint, Ms UG says that neither EP nor XY’s disclosed that they had not done an intestacy before’.49 [102] Ms UG had raised this issue directly with the firm when she said: It is unethical to bill me for this work wh...

9. LCRO 73/2025 PQ v KR (26 August 2025) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...inherent flaw in the “treadmill” argument. [100] It demands acquiescence to argument that a client would continue to retain a lawyer to represent them across a raft of matters, in circumstances where the client had no confidence in the lawyer. [101] The improbability of Mr PQ’s argument that he was chained to Mr KR and couldn’t sever the relationship, is amply illustrated by the steps taken following the court delivering its decision in the Company ABC matter. [102] After...

10. Auckland Standards Committee v Hylan [2014] NZLCDT 3 [pdf, 202 KB]

    ...“ex post facto” recollection to quote Mrs S as saying she wanted to sign and that she risked verbal and physical violence if she did not sign. Those factors present as matters which must have occurred prior to Mrs S signing in May 2012. [101] It is difficult to reconcile Mr Hylan’s later explanation that these matters arose from information said to have been provided seven months after the Agreement was signed, when they were expressed by him originally to be matters occu...