Search Results

1. Wellington Standards Committee 1 v McCardle [2025] NZLCDT 3 (10 January 2025) [pdf, 624 KB]

   ...unsatisfactory conduct? Did Mr McCardle honestly believe he was entitled to an Executor fee? [11] Mr Moon tested Mr McCardle about this in cross-examination. He pointed out that administration of this estate was simple. Mr McCardle’s view that he had protected the estate from a property relationship claim from the widow was fanciful. No claim was ever made even though the widow’s daughter had reserved her mother’s position on the point. On a balanced view of the matter, ti...

2. LCRO 086/2017 AC v BD (15 November 2018) [pdf, 206 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. [32] 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 necess...

3. [2021] NZACC 105 - W v ACC (16 July 2021) [pdf, 384 KB]

   ...anomalous. It was not suggested otherwise before me. No Judge could frame common law duties in so inconsistently and erratic a fashion. Nor could insurers achieve such outcomes in an informed market. But cover under the Act is the product of careful and crystalline drafting by legislators. The meaning and effect of the statutory words in issue is quite clear. [39] Ryan v Accident Compensation Corporation16 was a case where the issue was whether Ms Ryan who was on unpaid l...

4. LCRO 118/2023 TC v GS (13 December 2023) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...that he had apparently expressed. Relevantly, he recorded that: (a) the Firm had been instructed not to contact the applicant’s new lawyers and had respected that instruction; (b) the applicant’s allegation that the Firm that was “… scared that the Maori will be protesting you that’s why you hesitated to settle” was denied and the Firm was “… not sure who would be protesting about what”; (c) the applicant’s allegation that the Firm “… informed the bank manage...

5. LCRO 139/2020 MX v RJ and DJ (30 September 2021) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...[27] In the course of conducting an on the papers review, a Review Officer may elect to seek further information from the parties on a particular point or issue. [28] In this case, despite having the benefit of substantive submissions, following careful consideration of those submissions, I felt it both important and necessary to hear from the parties, and in particular, from Ms DJ and Mr RJ. [29] I wished to hear directly from the practitioners as to their reasons for delaying the...

6. [2006] NZEmpC AC 54/06 Yuan Cheng International Investment Group Ltd v Buer [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...it to be “a 12 month fixed term of employment” at $4,800.00 per month, after tax, as she had a similar contract with her current employer. This suited her best as she was familiar with it and it would guarantee that she would progress her career. Mr Lai agreed and assured her that this suited the company too as they needed a PA who would be willing to work at least that period, so that Mr Huang could form a good working relationship of trust with her and also be forced to lear...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Arman [2020] NZLCDT 17 (22 June 2020) [pdf, 289 KB]

   ...proof, followed by submissions on penalty. [3] This decision assesses the background facts and degree of culpability. We then consider and determine penalty. Issues for Determination 1. Were there breaches of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care3 which were reckless or wilful, so as to lead to a finding of misconduct? 2. If not, is negligence established to the requisite standard? 3. If not, are there breaches which lead to a finding of unsatisfactory conduct? 4. What is the...

8. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v Heaphy [2014] NZLCDT 61 [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...lawyer and friend quite heavily. [5] Soon after the raid, Mr Heaphy discovered the extent and depth of the investigation by Immigration New Zealand, and the likelihood that it would lead to his client facing serious charges. He sought to urgently protect his client from an attack on his assets, which he saw arising from two sources, which will be referred to later. [6] The extent of Mr Porter’s own “panic” and motivation to shelter assets was the subject of considerable dispu...

9. LCRO 10/2018 DO v ABC & Body Corporate (30 August 2019) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...as a penalty for unsatisfactory conduct. [2] The conduct identified by the Committee as unsatisfactory was that when acting for parties to a dispute and in contravention of r 10.2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules), he communicated directly with the other party knowing it was represented by lawyers. 2 Background [3] The events to which this application for review relate, occurred on 30 March 2017 at the annual genera...

10. Otago Standards Committee v Stewart [2016] NZLCDT 28 [pdf, 77 KB]

    ...to determine penalty the following factors are considered: 1. The seriousness of the conduct. 2. Aggravating features. 3. Mitigating features. 4. Relevant penalty decisions. 5. The need for specific or general deterrence. 6. The need for protection of the public. 3 In addition we consider there must be a further assessment: 7. The overall fitness of the practitioner. [5] Taking all of those features into account, we determine what will be a proportionate respons...