4431 items matching your search terms
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2020] NZLCRO 200 Ref: LCRO 099/2019 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN SQ Applicant AND LP Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr SQ
...Self-representing lawyer [21] Another issue that has arisen in determining costs is that Mr Gray, representative and chairperson of the Society, is a partner at law firm AB Gray & Associates. Part of the quantum sought comprises of his solicitor and firm fees. [22] As noted above, the general principle is that a self-representing litigant is not entitled to recover costs, only disbursements. However, self-representing lawyers fall into the exception as affirmed in McGuire. I...
...1. A reasonable penalty would be $1,000 to ensure similar mistakes do not occur in the future. 2. Retraining is unnecessary. 3. A remedy for the complainant is not appropriate. The wrongdoing is acknowledged, but he only charged a fair fee and worked diligently for the complainant. He is the victim of the incident. The complainant should seek a remedy from the party who received the money. 5 JURISDICTION [18] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to impose sanctions is se...
...1. A reasonable penalty would be $1,000 to ensure similar mistakes do not occur in the future. 2. Retraining is unnecessary. 3. A remedy for the complainant is not appropriate. The wrongdoing is acknowledged, but he only charged a fair fee and worked diligently for the complainant. He is the victim of the incident. The complainant should seek a remedy from the party who received the money. JURISDICTION [18] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to impose sanctions is set out i...
...an employment contract to work as a construction worker for a building company (the employer). [8] On an unknown date, Mr Jiang was approached by an unlicensed immigration agent (the agent), to seek a visa for the complainant. The adviser’s fee was RMB 7,000 (about NZD 1,600). Mr Jiang prepared a services agreement (signed by him on 13 April 2023). It was sent to the agent, but it was never signed by the complainant. [9] The visa application was filed by Mr Jiang with Immigra...
...her. [8] On the same day, the agreement was entered into between Mr Wan and the complainant. Mr Wan, as the named adviser, agreed to assist the complainant to apply for an essential skills work visa to remain in New Zealand. The professional fee was $3,000, including $1,500 only if the visa was successful. In addition, Immigration New Zealand’s application fee of $495 had to be paid. 3 [9] An invoice was also sent by the consultancy to the complainant on 10 June 2019...
...am) and later a text (at 11:35 am) stating the complainant would need to fill out the attached questionnaire and book a personal consultation, so Ms Schoeller could inform her of the options and later provide a written summary. The consultation fee was $195.50. It would be scheduled as soon as the questionnaire was completed. She would also need certain documents, which were identified. Ms Schoeller was available at 4 pm that day. [10] On the same day, 1 February 2023 (at 1:34...
...Mr GT to act in a “wrong way”. (b) Mr AD never expressed any concerns to Mr BE and did not give that as a reason for terminating [EJP]’s retainer. (c) He believes that Mr AD terminated the retainer when Mr BE refused to pay further legal fees. (d) He otherwise relies on the submissions made to the Standards Committee. Review on the papers [56] This review been undertaken pursuant to s 206(2) of the Act, which allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct an...
...justification for two senior counsel would normally be established at the outset of the proceedings, which did not occur here; (b) Mr Porter’s costs are not supported by an invoice. [29] In terms of disbursements, Mr Watson accepts the filing fee and accommodation claims for one counsel however he opposes the sum incurred for preparation of affidavit evidence for previously stated reasons. Mr Watson also accepts that $454.50 is appropriate to be reimbursed in full by the respo...
...residents’ only parking area for the exclusive use of a person who resides in the vicinity. (b) a residents’ exemption parking area for the use of a person who resides in the vicinity. (2) Auckland Transport may by resolution prescribe- (a) any fees to be paid annually or in any other specified manner, for the use by persons residing in the vicinity of a parking place; and (b) the manner by which any fees may be paid for the use of a parking place by persons residing in the v...