Ministry of Justice

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / lawyers were trustees of a family trust / fees not fair and reasonable / invoices not rendered in a reasonable time / lawyer had not issued a letter of engagement / failed to advise executors of their power to appoint trustees / did not allow uplifting of files / used legal processes for improper purposes / breach of Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.3 / rule 3 / rule 3.2 / rule 5 / rule 5.1 / rule 5.2 / rule 5.4 / rule 6 / rule 9 / rule 9.6 / instructing solicitor ordered to pay barrister / HELD / documents held for legitimate purpose / no obligation to forward documents / reduction of fees modified / breaches of rules 9 and 9.6  confirmed / other rule breaches reversed / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a). See also decision addendum/correction dated 12 November 2018.

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)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / division of relationship property / complaint lawyer was not competent / failed to follow instructions / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / HELD / no evidence to support complaints / Office not appropriate forum for appeal of Family Court decisions / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)

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)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / fees complaint / complaint lawyers misfiled appeal / failed to keep client informed / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 161 / section 210 / recovery of fees by lawyer / HELD / no evidence that lawyers had failed to communicate / no issues raised by lawyer filing appeal early / fee complaint has previously been considered by another Committee / lawyers able to seek recovery of fees / costs ordered against applicant / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / employment dispute / fee complaint / client entered arrangement to pay fees over time / client stopped paying fees / lawyer ceased acting until fees paid / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.10 / whether there was a conditional fee agreement / HELD / bankruptcy matter of public knowledge / lawyer should have informed client of consequences of bankruptcy / no requirement for lawyer to waive fees / no conditional fee agreement / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / whether application lodged out of time / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 198 / KX v WA LCRO 84/2012 (30 April 2012) / UQ v QI LCRO 19/2013 (2 April 2012) / 30 working day time limit / presumption of service / HELD / filing fee must accompany application for review / application for review lodged out of time / Office has no jurisdiction to consider application.

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / Committee considered complaint vexatious / complaint lawyers dishonest / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 12 / HELD / no new issues raised / appropriate to take no further action / complaint not vexatious / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / complaint lawyer had previously acted for complainant / conflict of interest / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6 / rule 6.1 / rule 8 / rule 8.7.1 / Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (a firm) [1992] 2 AC 222 (HL) / whether lawyer in possession of confidential  or relevant information / HELD / complainant had never been client of lawyer / no obligations of confidence / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint lawyer withdrew as counsel before trial / whether complainant owed fees / terms of engagement / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 4.2 / rule 11.3 / non-payment of fees / supervision of employees / HELD / withdrawal of lawyer does not raise any conduct issues / retainer was with firm / firm continued to act / lawyer continued to supervise firm’s employees / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / Family Court proceeding / evidence from psychologist / complaint lawyer did not challenge evidence of psychologist / failed to prepare for hearing / HELD / no evidence to support complaints / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / fees not fair and reasonable / failure to repay client funds held in trust account / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 110 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / rule 9.6 / Heslop v Cousins [2007] 3 NZLR 679 (HC) / Abbot v Macclesfield LCRO 40/2009 (29 May 2009) / open and transparent billing / reasonable time to render final account / HELD / final accounts not rendered within a reasonable time / fees not fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)