Ministry of Justice

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / family trust / complaint lawyer had met with the complainant’s siblings to discuss property matters / complainant’s brother paid the lawyer’s invoice / lawyer addressed his invoice to the complainant without his knowledge / LCRO 31/2009 (30 April 2009) / HELD / not a matter that should attract a disciplinary response as no harm was done / liability for payment was addressed by the Deed in which the parties agreed the complainant’s brother should be reimbursed / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / two findings of unsatisfactory conduct / both parties provided submissions as to the appropriate orders to be made / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 12(a) / section 14(a) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6.1 / HELD / complaints process is no substitute for a clam in negligence to be pursued through the courts / proper forum for large compensation claim is the courts / legal executive ordered to pay the sum of $2,000 to the complainant / invoice fee to be reduced by $400 plus GST / fee cancelled for the amendment to the agreement / $1,000 fine / legal executive ordered to pay Law Society the sum of $1,600 as contribution towards costs / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee made orders against lawyer / trust matter / complaint opposing lawyer made direct contact with a represented client / the lawyer’s statement of claim was a possible breach of proper purpose / complaint opposing lawyer acted incompetently and dishonestly / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.3 / rule 10.2 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 12(b) / HELD / breach of rule 10.2 had minimal consequence / complainant was not prejudiced or compromised by breach of rule 10.2 / drafting the statement of claim is using the law and a legal process / a lawyer cannot be properly criticised for robustly advancing their client’s position / lawyer’s conduct was unsatisfactory by reference to section 12(b) / Committee’s determination in regards to the fine was modified / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee decided to take no further action in relation to the complaint / complaint opposing lawyer instructed her husband to take a photograph of complainant’s property / also, misled the complainant’s lawyer by failing to advise that she sent her husband to take the photo / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 10 / rule 12 / HELD / complaint was considered by the police who elected to take no action on it / lawyer admits she made an error of judgement / lawyer ordered to pay $750 costs to the New Zealand Law Society to mark her deviation from best practice / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / litigation / complaint regarding fees charged not being fair and reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / rule 9.1 / HELD / time records provided accurate account of the work completed on the file / nature of the work undertaken justifies the deployment of a number of lawyers to work on the file / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / farm property / complaint regarding firm’s fee for acting on the purchase / fee included a percentage uplift based on the purchase price / letter of engagement did not mention potential percentage uplift / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 132(2) / section 156(1)(e) / section 156(1)(g) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3.4 / rule 3.4(a) / rule 9 / rule 9.1 / HELD / lawyers believed the percentage charge was an appropriate approach of taking into account the fee factors to arrive at a fair and reasonable fee / lawyers did not intend to mislead / LCRO directed that another Committee reconsider and determine whether the lawyers’ fee was more than a fee that is fair and reasonable for the services provided / Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory conduct was reversed / Committee’s orders to reduce lawyers’ fee was reversed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / family law litigation / complaint opposing lawyer wrote to complainant’s employer to cause unnecessary embarrassment, distress or inconvenience / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.3 / rule 8.7.1 / rule 10.1 / HELD / rule 2.3 recognises power imbalance between lawyer and non-lawyer / use of legal skills for anything other than proper purpose is an abuse of lawyer’s knowledge / conflict of interest complaint not addressed by Committee / $3,000 compensation is adequate / Committee directed to reconsider breach of r 8.7.1 / section 209 / Committee’s decision modified to increase fine to $3,000 due to seriousness of conduct / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / relationship property matter / complaint lawyer delayed filing legal aid and did not advise when it was approved, failed to respond to requests for information, was unresponsive, acted without instructions and was inappropriate and unprofessional during a telephone conversation / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 3.1 / rule 10 / HELD / lawyer understood legal aid would advise complainant of whether grant was approved, no disciplinary response necessary / oversights in responding were relatively minor, frequently communicated / concerns about general demeanour during telephone call not proven / lawyer failed to appreciate questioning about abusive emails of a sexual nature caused discomfort / extent of questioning unnecessary / should have been discussed in-person / no evidence that distress from conversation affected settlement / disciplinary response not merited / lawyer offered apology / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / judicial review and associated proceedings / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 10.2 / HELD / hourly rate fairly and reasonably reflects seniority, experience and competence / time spent consistent with nature of work / that litigation was unsuccessful was not a result of lawyer’s actions / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / complaint against Standards Committee member / complaint Committee member did not forward relevant evidence to the complainant in breach of natural justice / Deliu v Lawyers Complaints Service of the New Zealand Law Society [2012] NZHC 2582 / HELD / all complaints about a lawyer must be put to a Standards Committee / however, complaints about Complaints Service and Standards Committee members can be put to the Board of the New Zealand Law Society as well / Board may independently consider complaint / Board declined to take further action / Standards Committee member not providing regulated services / test for misconduct outside of regulated services not met / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / employment proceedings / complaint lawyer A used position on board of complainant’s client to malign complainant, leading to complainant losing retainer, and advised client on area lawyer A had no experience in / complaint lawyer B implied pursuing complaint would place complainant at risk of disciplinary action, failed to inform client they may have a claim against lawyer A, and should have ceased acting until independent advice obtained / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.7 / rule 2.10 / rule 5.11 / HELD / evidence did not establish lawyer A maligned reputation, acted improperly to entice client, or acted discourteously to complainant / unlikely lawyer A could be held out as providing regulated services / inadequate basis to claim failure to inform client of possibility of claim against lawyer / no threat made / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / shareholder dispute / complaint firm acted for more than one client / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6.1 / rule 8.7 / HELD / firm acted for company but also for four director-shareholders, despite lack of formal engagement of the firm by them / however little if any risk of lawyers being unable to discharge obligations to company and four director-shareholders / company controlled by those four, and reasonable to expect information provided to both / lawyers did not obtain informed consent from company and four director-shareholders to continue acting for both / breach of r 6.1.1 / no professional issues arising from lawyers’ interactions with complainant / LCRO not convinced that information about complainant and their family interests held or known by firm could, if disclosed, have been used against complainant and their family interests adversely in context of restructuring proposal / no unsatisfactory conduct finding / no breach of r 6.1 by acting for more than one party in these circumstances / firm believed they acted for company alone until alerted / then referred to another firm / doubtful firm had advantageous information about complainant / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / civil dispute / complaint lawyer’s memorandum to court contained racist and discriminatory references, offensive impressions, and racial bias / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 1.2 / HELD / lawyer owed limited duties and obligations to complainant, as complainant was not their client / did not misrepresent complainant’s views to the court / reference to complainant’s ethnicity and profession could not be reasonably or sensibly interpreted as evidence of lawyer behaving unprofessionally or discourteously / no disrespect in describing complainant’s specific stance about litigation / comments not racist simply because complainant feels they are racist / comments would not be racial harassment under 2021 amendments to Rules / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)