Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Mellett [2014] NZLCDT 46 [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...conceded that the behaviour complained of could be categorised as negligence. 7 Charge 6 [23] Once again three alternatives are pleaded in respect of a further complaint from a client, in respect of whom the practitioner failed to file an information capsule in time, resulting in summary judgment being obtained against the client. To make matters worse the practitioner promised to apply to set aside the judgment at his own cost but in fact did nothing about this....

2. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Eichelbaum [2015] NZLCDT 8 [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...number of matters, including that Mr Eichelbaum had been warned to desist in his behaviour and had responded with threats. We regard this as being part of the conduct itself rather than an aggravating feature. She also pointed to his continuing to file inflammatory affidavits using intemperate language. Again we considered 6 there would be the risk of double counting were this to be regarded as an aggravating feature. [20] Finally, Ms Davenport points to the response the...

3. Legal Complaints Review Officer v Hong [2015] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...suspension. [7] Mr Hong appealed that penalty and on appeal the suspension was reduced to the four months which had already been served by Mr Hong while awaiting the hearing of the appeal. [8] On the same day of his High Court appeal Mr Hong then filed an application for judicial review against the Standards Committee and the Tribunal. It is that judicial review which is the subject of the decision on 14 October last. The review was successful and as a result both the Standards...

4. CX v WZ LCRO 251 / 2010 (20 June 2011) [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...risk if the company went into liquidation. [10] The Respondent says that he made it clear to the Applicant that he could not act for her and that she needed to obtain independent legal advice. He took no notes of the meeting, did not create a file, and did not render an account. He says that he obliged the Applicant by meeting with her out of a sense of duty, having acted for her in excess of 20 years. [11] The Applicant says that on the basis of her understanding that her inheri...

5. Dingwell v Auck SC 1 LCRO 166 / 2009 (15 December 2009) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...had lied in his complaint against Mr Dingwell. The complaints were lodged and considered under the Law Practitioners Act 1982 regime. On 8 October 2008 the Professional Standards Director informed the parties that on a review of the matter the file would be closed without further action. Mr Dingwell argued that this demonstrated inconsistency because in that case the Society (albeit the Auckland District Law Society under the predecessor framework) had failed to investigate allegati...

6. 2017 NZSSAA 014 (20 April 2017) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...to work regularly in suitable and open employment for 15 or more hours a week or likely to be able to do so in the next two years”. It expressed the view that in the years between 2011 and 2013 such work was possible. [16] Accordingly, the file note relied on by the Ministry and the designated doctor’s reports say two completely different things. The Designated Doctor apparently said that the appellant met the standards for a 5 Supported Living Payment/Invalids Bene...

7. LCRO 007/2017 NT YR v HV [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...meeting without good reason. The Committee’s view was that the complainants had reached an impasse with Mr HV such that he was not obliged to act on their instructions because they had said they would not pay him, and he was not obliged to hand his files over because he had the right to claim a lien to protect himself against non-payment. [12] The Committee considered Mr HV’s fees, and factors that were relevant to the calculation of those fees, and concluded the fees were fair an...

8. LCRO 226/2016 TS v KN [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...standards issue. Nor does it support the contention that Mr KN ignored, or did not obey Mr TS’ instructions to the letter. There is also no reason to be concerned if, as Mr TS contends, the payment was offered to placate his former wife when filing deadlines were looming in the relationship property proceeding. There is no suggestion that the Court or the other party expressed any concern about unmet deadlines, only a 6 suggestion that Mr TS should be preparing a formal respo...

9. YCAP - information sharing guide [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...if they don’t give permission – for example, you may not be able to provide certain services. You should always keep a record of the fact that a person has given their permission. You can get them to sign a consent form or you can make a file note if they give their approval verbally. Your agency or organisation will probably have its own policy about how to get consent for sharing personal information. It may also have consent forms to use. If so, you should follow that policy...

10. AN on behalf of AAK v ZL LCRO 111 / 2010 (17 February 2011) [pdf, 107 KB]

    ...conflict of interest in that he acted for the two companies. [38] The outcome of the review that he seeks, is a reduction of the fees charged by the Respondent. Review [39] In conducting this review I have considered the Standards Committee file and the correspondence and material provided by the parties to this Office. [40] The view was formed that the review could be carried out without an appearance from either party and each party consented to the matter proceeding on that...