You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.
Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.

Helpful search tips:

  • If you are looking for a specific decision with a forward slash in the title (eg, 123/2014), you will need to replace the forward slash with a space (eg, 123 2014), as the website cannot pick up on forward slashes (/) or any other characters.
  • If you are doing a keyword search (eg. misconduct), please note that this search will only produce decisions where the keyword appears in the title or decision description. If you want to search the entire decision document for certain keywords, you will need to use full website search located in the top right hand corner of this page.
  • If you want to search for a decision from a particular jurisdiction using the full website search, put both the jurisdiction name and the keyword in the search field (eg, LCRO misconduct).
Search results

840 items matching your search terms

  1. LCRO 196/2013 XM v WG [PDF, 481 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute over estate / respondent acted for executor / applicant estate beneficiary / complaint respondent misled applicant / complaint respondent gained commission on estate sale / Re: Stewart [2003] 1 NZLR 809 (HC) / Irvine v Public Trustee [1989] 1 NZLR 67 (CA) / obligations of respondent to applicant /  HELD / duties owed to executor / no evidence before committee about commission / Committee directed to reconsider commission complaint / section 209(1)(a) / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a) 

  2. LCRO 272/2015 PA v NT, RO and DS (31 August 2018) [PDF, 214 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / estate dispute / lawyers were executors and trustees of estate / complaint about sale of property to beneficiary of estate / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 7 / rule 7.1 / Hansen v Young [2004] 1 NZLR 37 (CA) / Morpeth v Ramsey LCRO 110/2009 (12 November 2009) / whether lawyers providing regulated services / HELD / partners in firm cannot be subject of complaint if they have not been involved / actions taken as trustee not reviewable by Office / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

  3. LCRO 144/2016 QT v UF (24 August 2018) [PDF, 245 KB]

    Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / conflict of interests / failure to provide competent advice / lawyer acted as lender and borrower in a loan agreement / review of penalty decision / Saxmere Co Ltd v New Zealand Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd [2009] NZSC 35, [2010] 1 NZLR 35 / AF v X LCRO 84/2014 (8 October 2014) / bias of Committee member / previous disciplinary history / HELD / no evidence of bias in Committee’s decision / no disciplinary history at the time conduct occurred / fine reduced / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)

  4. LCRO 71/2016 ZB v YA (23 August 2018) [PDF, 230 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / lawyer was director of a company which rented property from complainant / complaint lawyer mislead complainant / Committee held it lacked jurisdiction as it was a dispute between landlord and tenant / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 12 / respect and courtesy / HELD / lawyer not acting in a professional capacity / no evidence of misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

  5. LCRO 7/2016 Mr and Mrs YJ v XW (22 August 2018) [PDF, 166 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / property purchase / lawyer acted for vendor and purchaser / complaint lawyer failed to explain fees / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3.4 / Wilson v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 2288 / provision of information to client / conduct rules not to be enforced in an overly technical manner / HELD / fees fair and reasonable / breach of rule 3.4 excusable rather than unsatisfactory conduct / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)