HR v OW & CT LCRO 79/2014 (8 September 2015) [pdf, 299 KB]
...responsible for the lawyer’s conduct; that is their concern. Putting the financial costs to one side for a moment, it is clear from Mr 6 HR’s evidence that the lawyers’ conduct in this matter has caused him significant inconvenience. The consequential orders made under s 156 should address the unsatisfactory nature of the conduct. Apology [25] The combination of s 156(1)(c) and s 211(1)(b) enables a LCRO to order a lawyer to address his or her unsatisfactory conduct...