Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2019] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...“general, not file specific, mentoring may be permitted”. Ms Ollivier went on to state the Society’s expectation that “… any contact with clients about updating wills/trusts would be carried out by other staff” and finally she noted that “care will need to be taken that other lawyers do not form the impression that you are continuing to practise although that seems unlikely from what you have described”. [19] Approximately a week later Mr Burcher sent a further email...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Anderson [2022] NZLCDT 25 (22 July 2022) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...particular, her estranged husband, Mr G, having agreed to move out of the home that they had shared (and which was owned by a trust and separate property in terms of the s 21 Agreement), was 4 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 5 Ms Anderson had only been married to this man for two years, and they had a contracting out agreement pursuant to s 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. 4 reneging on that agreement and refusing to...

3. DL v EX LCRO 128/2012 (16 December 2013) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...rendered to Mr DN when he was alive; 4 b. he had anticipated that some of the children from Mr DN’s first marriage may challenge his will and that, when this occurred, the Practitioner successfully negotiated settlement of two potential Family Protection claims; and c. that his legal costs of $30,547.81 equated to approximately 60 hours work for him, undertaken over many months. The Practitioner did not feel that this was in any way an excessive charge, but noted that he...

4. BW v SC LCRO 1/2015 (8 April 2015) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...years. [55] The conduct on which the Committee based its decision relates to what appear to be multiple breaches of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 in relation to the firm’s trust account, and mishandling the firm’s money. [56] Although his admissions to the Standards Committee may present something of an impediment, it is open to Mr BW to contest evidence befor...

5. Applicant C v Registrar of Real Estate Agents Authority 2017] NZREADT 10 [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...that she had been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty. She also disclosed that the company was being liquidated. [8] The applicant was then asked to provide details as to her offending and the charges she faced, the likely penalties, and protections put in place by her employer to ensure that she was supervised and supported. The applicant responded to that request. [9] On [ ], the Registrar advised the applicant that she intended to decline her application to renew he...

6. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v Hancock [2011] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...to December 2010; (e) January and February 2011. He thereby concealed the overdrawn status of the trust account, in breach of s.112(1)(a) LCA, Regs 11(1) & (2) and 14 LTAR 2008 and Rule 11.1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. Charge 5 - False Trust Account Compliance Certificates - LPA In his capacity as Trust Account Partner, as defined in Rule 16(1)(b) STAR 96, he issued monthly compliance certificates for the months January to July and December...

7. LCRO 196/2016 GY v SO (15 September 2017) [pdf, 194 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. [23] 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 neces...

8. LCRO 6/2025 EI v NT (30 April 2025) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...privacy and confidentiality, arising out of her retainer with NT during May 2023, had been compromised, and that NT had been negligent. It amounted to a breach of various of the rules in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). (g) NT had clearly failed to check for any conflicts of interest before agreeing to act for XE. (h) The advice that NT gave XE, as noted in the letter NT had sent to EI, contradicted the advice given to EI....

9. Recommendations recap - issue 8 [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Fire-Related .................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Health Care Issues......................................................................................................................

10. Alchin and Scott TRI 2020-100-001 [2022] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 [pdf, 374 KB]

    ...show any metal flashings is not correct. Mr Bodger’s opinion is that the building consent documents clearly detail flashings into the sill and jamb areas as required and that the documentation shows the lapping methodology of the flashings to protect the “Triple S” substrate from moisture. Mr Bodger’s evidence is that on his site visit on 3 February 2021 with Mr Gilling, further destructive testing was undertaken and although it found that the galvanised sill flashings had...