Search Results

1. LCRO 101/2016 PL v OH (29 November 2018) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...valid, [Ms OH] was attempting to obtain an additional $37,050 over the original purchase price for her client by issuing a document – being the settlement statement – knowing it to be incorrect. [14] She did not consider her lawyer could have protected her “from something [she] had no knowledge of due to the serious misconduct and deception by Ms OH”. [15] Mrs PL did not agree that Ms OH had no duty to her. She “believes Ms OH, as a member of the Law Society, has fundamental...

2. Cooper v Standards Committee LCRO 280/2013, 281/2013, 324/2013, 325/2013, 34/2014, 118/2014 (17 April 2015) [pdf, 406 KB]

   ...appeared to have receipted funds directly into his practice account, in breach of rule 9.3, regs 9 and 10 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008, and s 110 of the Act. [6] The Committee considered:5 …that the protection of client money is of paramount importance under the Act and the reason why there are stringent rules around the handling of client money by lawyers. Mr Cooper’s conduct is in direct contravention of these requirements and is a ser...

3. Complaints Assessment Committee 412 v Singh [2019] NZREADT 004 [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...transaction. … (3) The licensee must make the disclosure required by subsection (1) before or at the time that the licensee provides the prospective party with any contractual documents that relate to the transaction. [10] The purpose of s 136 is to protect vendors and prospective purchasers by providing for transparency in a real estate transaction. Parties to a transaction are entitled to be aware of the identity of those they are dealing with, so that they may be assisted...

4. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v O'Connor [2023] NZLCDT 21 (17 May 2023) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...that case also, the practitioner referred to the hardship to clients as justifying a stay of the suspension.5 His Honour Lang J acknowledged that there may be prejudice to existing clients and some disruption to court hearings. [29] His Honour carefully analysed the rationale underlying section 244(3):6 The Act is protective in nature, in that two of its primary purposes are to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services and to protect consumers of legal services....

5. LCRO 59/2021 RY v QX (21 December 2022) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...which allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review on the basis of all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [53] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that nece...

6. LCRO 7/2024 SO v EJ and QJ (30 July 2025) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...addressed in that initial meeting, identified in Wills and Succession (NZ), include:45 • Identifying of assets and liabilities (and forms of ownership e.g. joint tenants, tenants in common, etc). • Whether special arrangements need to be made to protect assets (e.g. custody of valuables, insurance of property, etc). • Is money needed to pay: – Funeral expenses, debts and administration expenses. – Cash legacies. – Beneficiary maintenance and/or income. 44 At par...

7. OIA-94638.pdf [pdf, 7 MB]

   ...O FF IC IA L IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82 3 circumstances, which the defence is designed to recognise, do not alter depending on the identity of the child killed. It also means that children in the home, the most vulnerable, have less protection because of the substantially lower maximum penalty for infanticide (3 years). 11.3. It is available only when the child killed is less than 10 years old. If a mother kills her three children aged 1, 9, and 12 years, suffering a disord...

8. Ron Lunken Family Trust v Haywood Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 66 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...and partly verbal and that Haywood was responsible for both design and construction. It is claimed that Haywood breached clause 2 of the contract by failing to carry out the construction to the required standards and by breaching its duty of care as the builder. [6] The Trustees and the Council claim against Mr de Geest in tort as the project manager on the ground that Mr de Geest personally assumed the role of project manager and was responsible for supervising and co-o...

9. KIT v Zhu [2019] NZIACDT 34 (20 May 2019) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...[25] However, it was accepted by Mr Zhu that he neglected to have a signed contract with the complainant. Nor did he provide the Code of Conduct 2014 (the Code) to the complainant. He also admitted not checking the interim visa issue with due care. He further acknowledged that his file notes were not complete, which was a vital mistake to make. [26] Mr Zhu set out in his letter to the Authority his proposed remedial action. This included asking all 16 staff, apart from the thr...

10. [2021] NZIACDT 13 - TI v Malcolm (8 June 2021) [pdf, 220 KB]

    ...There was no response from Mr Malcolm. Complaint referred to Tribunal [23] The Registrar referred the complaint to the Tribunal on 20 April 2021. It alleges the following against Mr Malcolm: (1) negligence, or alternatively a lack of due care in breach of cl 1 of the Code, by – (a) failing to lodge the application in time; (b) failing to lodge the application online; (c) failing to inform the complainant of Immigration New Zealand’s letter of 23 October 2020; (d) fai...