Ministry of Justice

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / mediation / complaint lawyer did not provide competent advice, colluded with opposing counsel, did not record mediation, and misled the complainants / HELD / no jurisdiction to consider matter not before Committee / lawyer not required to record mediation / no evidence lawyer colluded with opposing counsel or misled complainants / no evidence conduct not competent / negligence claim must be pursued in civil jurisdiction / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / property development and drafting shareholder agreement / complaint lawyer acted in conflict of interest / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 5 / rule 6 / rule 6.1 / HELD / lawyer conflicted / breach of rule 5 and subrules / found lawyer acted for complainant while director of development company in competition with complainant’s company / breach of rule 6.1 / due to conflicts, lawyer unable to explain all material risks in complainant providing unlimited guarantee and should have declined to act / Committee found conduct unsatisfactory per s 12(a), reversed on review / review focused on conflicts and found unsatisfactory conduct based on rule breaches per s 12(c) / $2,500 fine increased to $7,500 / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee declined to take further action / personal grievance and ERA claim / complaint lawyers did not act in a competent and timely manner / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / HELD / one lawyer complained about took no proactive steps for 20 months / delay conduct breached rule 3 / Committee’s decision modified to find unsatisfactory conduct pursuant to s 12(c) on basis of breach of rule 3 / other lawyer instructed to stop acting, but did not adequately file note this instruction / no disciplinary consequences arise / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / easement litigation and appeal / complaint lawyer charged fees that were not fair and reasonable, did not treat complainant with respect and courtesy, and refused to release file / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3.1 / rule 3.4A / rule 3.7 / HELD / costs assessor appropriately disclosed personal connection to retainer, no evidence of bias / reasonable fee factor for risk disregarded / rule 9.1(e) does not encompass risk client may terminate retainer / barrister not required to provide terms of engagement in advance, but it would have been prudent to do so / effect of non-provision not as extensive as alleged / errors identified in time records do not establish fees not fair and reasonable / fees fair and reasonable / delay in making file available does not warrant disciplinary response / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / estate administration and litigation / complaint fees charged to estate not fair and reasonable, lawyer acted in conflict of interest and was not competent / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 9 / HELD / lawyer alleged costs assessor breached natural justice / lawyer did not return assessor’s call / has not engaged in previous disciplinary proceedings / Committee may inquire into invoices issued after fee complaint made / professional estate administration conduct by lawyer captured by Act / difficulty in reconciling files / Committee’s decision modified so lawyer’s management of physical files breaches s 12(b), not rule 3 / costs assessor’s report recommended global fee reduction / some fees assessed as fair and reasonable, should not be reduced / Committee’s decision modified to reduce, cancel and refund excessive fees only / $2,000 fine and $500 costs not interfered with / otherw…

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / border alert application / complaint delay and clerical error in submitting border alert application demonstrated lawyer’s conduct did not meet standard of competence required / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 12(a) / HELD / on review, complainant broadened complaint to include firm’s processes and procedures / issue not within scope of review / no breach of rule 3 / first application form not accepted by police as not signed by lawyer / form indicates it can be signed by complainant or lawyer / at police request, lawyer signed form / secretary erroneously sent previous form again / lawyer not fairly responsible for secretary’s error / correct form sent promptly after error / in context, delays do not constitute unsatisfactory conduct / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / estate matter / complaint opposing lawyer acted fraudulently and deceptively while seeking a copy of a will from third parties / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.3 / rule 11.1 / HELD / lawyers owe limited duties to non-clients / lawyer was seeking a copy of a will that was not provided to other beneficiaries by complainant / it would have been preferable for lawyer to indicate they were assisting beneficiaries with estate rather than in the administration of estate / evidence does not demonstrate conduct was dishonest, rather, imprecise / rule 11.1 directed at misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to a lawyer’s practice, not in advocacy / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / civil litigation / complaint lawyers did not provide competent representation, did not follow instructions and charged fees that were not fair and reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / rule 9.1 / HELD / new issues raised at review stage cannot be considered / lawyers must follow client instructions / no evidence lawyers resisted instructions to end litigation / complainant advised of risks / no evidence lawyers falsely represented hourly rates / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / insurance claim and franchise advice / complaint lawyers not competent, charged fees that were not fair and reasonable, and did not make it clear an invoice did not cover franchise advice from another firm / HELD / jurisdiction / application for review included request to review two determinations; one was out of time to review / Complaint Services’ decision to split complaint into two files is an administrative decision, review jurisdiction is to review aspects of Committee’s inquiry / nevertheless, decision to separate complaints logical / no evidence of professional conduct issue / disciplinary process does not closely analyse and second guess litigation decisions / mistaken assumption that an invoice covered franchise advice / franchise advice properly chargeable / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / advice relating to protection order / complaint opposing lawyer advised their client they could breach explicit terms of protection order / CW v XB LCRO 213/2010 / KJ v VW LCRO 54/18 / Burmeister v O’Brien [2010] 2 NZLR 395 (HC) / HELD / expected that a reasonably competent lawyer would comprehend restriction imposed by protection order and advise client accordingly / unsatisfactory conduct pursuant to section 12(a) / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / lodging a caveat, claim against estate / complaint lawyer lodged caveat without proper basis and Committee did not order full compensation / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.3 / section 156(1)(d) / BAB v PW LCRO 4/2011 / HELD / lawyer’s client did not have caveatable interest / review application challenges partial compensation order / Committee determined not to provide full compensation due to complainant’s contributory behaviour / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / failed property development / complaint lawyer knowingly participated in fraudulent development scheme / second complaint / LO v RT LCRO 202/17 (4 February 2019) / HELD / second complaint repeats earlier complaint / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)