Q v I LCRO 41 / 2009 (2 June 2009) [pdf, 22 KB]
...light of the fact that the debt was disputed (or at least that he ought not have done so without warning). [5] Lawyer I accepts that he acted for Complainat Q “from at least November 2005 to May 2006”. It appears that this was in respect of resource consent matters. It also appears he undertook a small amount of conveyancing work for the company. At the hearing he did not seek to minimise the extent of those retainers. He also observed that when Complainant Q objected to him...