Ministry of Justice

Committee referred conduct complaint to Disciplinary Tribunal / allegation of misconduct regarding content of apology ordered by LCRO / Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZCA 230 / Zhao v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 2622 / EB: Application for Review of a Prosecutorial Decision LCRO 110/2017 / HELD / Committee not required to provide reasons for prosecutorial decision / no basis to claim apology was to be reviewed by LCRO for acceptability before being sent to complainant / apology provocative / Committee reasonable to determine apology raised legitimate disciplinary issues / no reason to interfere with referral / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee declined to take further action / litigation fees / complaint lawyer was not efficient, legal fees exceeded recovery, and did not invoice in accordance with terms of engagement / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, reg 29 / VM v XZ [2020] NZLCRO 216 / HELD / Committee incorrectly applied reg 29 / only reviewed last nine months of fees / Committee’s fee complaint analysis was superficial and proceeded only on the basis of the complaint and the response / Committee directed to reconsider complaint / section 209

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / enforcement of judgment / complaint lawyer has not been able to recover money through civil enforcement / HELD / lawyer not responsible for judgment debtor’s non-payment / took extensive action to attempt to enforce judgment / enforcement proceedings complicated by death of judgment debtor / lawyer’s conduct competent / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Decision regarding jurisdiction

Review / Committee declined to take further action / family law proceedings / complaint lawyer did not advise complainant against not responding to a request for an undertaking in lieu of applying for a protection order / J v Auckland Standards Committee 1 [2018] NZHC 2706 / Woods v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2013] NZHC 674 / Gilbert v Shanahan [1998] 3 NZLR 528 (CA) / YR v OS LCRO 3/2019 / HELD / client was prepared to acquiesce to request outlined in undertaking, but did not want to respond / lawyer was aware of consequences of obtaining protection order but did not advise against non-response strategy / protection order applied for / failed to protect and promote client’s interests / Committee’s decision reversed / unsatisfactory conduct found pursuant to s 12(a) / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / immigration applications / complaint lawyer failed to provide clear, not misleading information about fees and services / charged fees that were not fair and reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 1.6 / rule 3.4 / rule 9 / rule 9.1 / HELD / Committee only provided reasons for one of four tranches of fees in fee complaint / first tranche fair and reasonable but fees agreement conflated disbursements into fee component, charging GST on disbursements exempt from GST / whether second tranche properly chargeable / fee agreement inconsistent with lawyer’s understanding, client not liable / authority to charge fourth tranche not provided in writing as required by rule 3.4, but fair and reasonable / Committee’s findings reversed in part regarding fee complaint, and modified to reduce fine to $3,500 / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a) 

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / complaint lawyer withholding client funds and client rejects liability for invoices / HELD / District Court judgment establishes liability and disposed of issues / application for review discloses no reasonable cause of action and is an abuse of process / application for review struck out / section 205(1)(a) and (d)

Complaint / Committee found it lacked jurisdiction / complaint lawyer’s fees not fair and reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, reg 29 / HELD / jurisdiction to assess fee complaint requires “special circumstances” as fee does not exceed $2,000 / no special circumstances found on review / terms of engagement permitted the involvement of more than one lawyer / no evidence hourly rate abnormally or uncommonly high / fee indicative of work completed / application for review discloses no reasonable course of action / application for review struck out / section 205(1)(a) 

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / will matter / complaint lawyer represented two clients and did not verify affidavit / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6.1 / rule 8.1 / rule 8.7 / rule 10.2 / Black v Taylor [1993] 3 NZLR 403 (CA) / HELD / conflict of interest / lawyers acted for two clients when their interests coincided / when interests diverged, clients instructed separate lawyers / lawyers could not contact complainant directly for consent / complainant’s lawyers did not raise objection / no breach of rule 6.1 / confidential information / personal characteristics / not clear “insights” into personal characteristics are confidential / no characteristic identified that would provide advantage / other client would have been able to impart knowledge about characteristics / no breach of rules 8.7 or 8.7.1 / lawyer held corroborating evidence regarding affidavit / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a) 

Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / domestic violence proceedings / complaint by police prosecutor that lawyer acted for victim and defendant in conflict of interest / judge also referred conflict concerns to Law Society / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6.1 / rule 6.1.2 / rule 6.1.3 / HELD / unable to act where there is a more than negligible risk lawyer may be unable to discharge obligations to one or more clients / acting for victim against production order of medical records, intertwined with defendant’s interests / caution to clients that if conflict arose lawyer would cease acting, impermissibly shifts responsibility for identifying and notifying conflict, to clients / lawyer initially identified she could not represent victim / perceived compatibility of interests not demonstrated by facts / supervising partner approved lawyer acting / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / employment proceedings / complaint opposing lawyer had affidavit, including substantive facts and documents regarding dispute, affirmed before lawyer at potential future employer / HELD / on review, declined to refer complaint to Committee dealing with complainant’s other complaint / issues involved in this complaint are discrete and can be addressed separately / no evidence complainant was seeking employment at firm / lawyer arranged for junior to identify colleague who could remotely witness affidavit / no conduct issue arises on that point / substantive facts and documents in affidavit / disciplinary process not involved until first-instance decision maker assesses conduct / standard way of putting relevant material before court / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / employment proceedings / complaint against Employment Relations Authority members for actions during proceedings, alleging they brought legal profession into disrepute / HELD / while conduct by statutory decision maker not always beyond scope of disciplinary inquiry, in this context it is / respondents held practicing certificates / however, not providing regulated services in exercising statutory functions / dissatisfaction with decision-making may be challenged in in conventional forums / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / immigration and employment matter / complaint lawyer acted for client’s employer against client and threatened to disclose information about family member for improper purpose / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.7 / rule 6 / rule 6.1 / rule 8 / rule 8.7.1 / rule 10 / HELD / parallel complaint in Immigration Advisers Authority jurisdiction / at review hearing, lawyer accepted Committee’s liability determination / penalty / Committee imposed $10,000 fine / conflict of interest serious / inexperienced as lawyer, but should have been aware of conflict principles from experience as immigration adviser / threat regarding family member also warrants significant penalty / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)