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

1414 items matching your search terms

  17. LCRO 127/2017 EZ v UO [PDF, 265 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / respondent acted for applicant in litigation / complaint litigation conducted incompetently / complaint applicant treated discourteously / complaint applicant ignored Judge’s order / excessive fees / HELD / representation was competent / applicant treated courteously / discovery issues not sufficiently grave to merit sanction / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  18. LCRO 276/2013+293/2013+242/2016 CS v VN, PR and ZW ZM v VC [PDF, 274 KB]

    Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / applicant acted for respondents / summary judgment sought for fees / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 13.1 / rule 13.5 / rule 13.5.3 / rule 11 / rule 4.4.1 / rule 2.3 / independence in litigation / lien over files / misleading conduct to court and costs assessor / HELD / breach of rule 13.5 and 13.5.3 / applicant mistaken in view of lien / breach of rule 4.4.1 reversed / cost assessor not mislead / court not mislead / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
  20. LCRO 110/2017 EB v APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A PROSECUTORIAL DECISION [PDF, 262 KB]

    Complaint / Committee referred matter to the NZLCDT / failure to terminate retainer / failure to account for trust money / acting without instructions / Zhao v The Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 2622 / Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZCA 230, [2013] 3 NZLR 562 / HELD / Standards Committee not required to give reasons for referral / no concern over process followed / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  22. LCRO 19/2017 VY v WR [PDF, 191 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute over insurance remediation / respondent acted for insurers / experts conference held / complaint alleges fraud / Zhao v The Legal Complaints Review Officer [2017] NZHC 1561 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2.4 / alleged fraud of respondent / HELD / respondent advancing clients’ interests / no evidence of fraud / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  23. LCRO 25/2016 RZ v LB [PDF, 229 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute between directors / respondent filed proceedings in district court / District Court Rules 2014 rule 5.38 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2.3 / rule 3 / authorisation to file / improper purpose / HELD / no authority to file proceedings / incorrect filing was improper purpose / failure to act competently / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a) and (b)
  24. LCRO 89/2017 FZ v LS [PDF, 229 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute over taxation advice / respondent emailed applicant on behalf of respondent’s clients / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2.7 / rule 6 / threats / improper purpose / refusal to continue corresponding / HELD / email not capable of threat / duty of respondent not to correspond further / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)