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:
1370 items matching your search terms
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute over trust and estate / lawyer sibling of complainant / complaint lawyer had a conflict of interest / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 5.4 / HELD / lawyer only acted on non-contentious matters / no evidence to support complaints / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / employment dispute / employment dispute / Committee found lawyer had potentially mislead complainants lawyer / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 12 / whether lawyer was misleading / HELD / no evidence to support claims lawyer was misleading / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / debt recovery proceedings / disclosure of confidential information / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 8.7.1 / whether personal characteristics is confidential information / duties to former clients / HELD / lawyer had not acted for former client for many years / any insights would no longer be accurate / no confidential information / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / dispute over estate / client legally aided / lawyer had not managed employee’s conduct / failed to manage practice / lack of timeliness in providing services / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 11 / rule 11.3 / HELD / insufficient evidence on issue of timeliness and supervision / breach of rules 3 and 11.3 reversed / fine reduced / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / review of orders made by Committee / lawyer prepared a will / will maker lacked capacity / Committee ordered publication and compensation / whether client lacked capacity / HELD / questions of capacity for the courts / arguments for compensation should be tested by the courts / publication not in the public interest / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / unsuccessful criminal appeal / complaint lawyer retained a vehicle / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.6 / final accounts / whether fees were to be paid by legal aid / HELD / not enough evidence to support fee complaint / complaints about vehicle not suitable for the Office to determine / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / administration of estate / applicant not client of lawyer / Committee found lawyer was slow to render final invoice / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.6 / HELD / no duties owed to applicant / no evidence lawyer failed in their duties to the client / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Date of decision: 6 July 2017
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / dispute with commercial landlord / complaint lawyer terminated retainer / fee complaint / failure to send file to client / HELD / no evidence to support allegations / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / purchase of a business / lawyers acted for the vendor / refusal to return deposit / complaint lawyer breached undertaking / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 10.3.2 / lawyer holding funds as stakeholder / whether agreement cancelled / HELD / complaints process not an alternative to court proceedings / the Office is not the correct forum for the dispute / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Decision (6 July 2017)
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / email contained threat to lay complaint against another lawyer / improper use of complaints process / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.7 / rule 2.10 / UF v OU LCRO 90/2011 (20 March 2013) / improper purpose / HELD / complaints process not to be used to enforce a legal right / email not sent for improper purpose / lawyer had sought advice from senior practitioner / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Committee determined that conduct be considered by Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal / overpayment on money into trust account / trust account obligations / failure to follow instructions / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 158 / Lawyers and Conveyancers (Trust Accounts) Regulations 2008, regulation 12 / Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZCA 230, [2013] 3 NZLR 562 / VX and VXZ v North Island Standards Committee LCRO 126/2012 (5 June 2013) / HELD / Standards Committee not obliged to provide reasons for laying charges / laying of charges justified / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / purchase of a business / complaint lawyer failed to act competently / respond in a timely manner / did not provide required information / unreasonable fees / respect and courtesy / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 3.1 / rule 3.2 / rule 3.4 / rule 9 / rule 10.1 / RQ and RR v MZ LCRO 127/2011 (2 October 2012) / CW v XB LCRO 213/2010 (15 June 2011) / HELD / lawyers errors not at level of unsatisfactory conduct / lawyers should have explained matters more clearly to clients / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Decision (12 June 2017) PLUS a suplementary order dated 29 June 2017
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / property purchase / lawyers exchanged undertakings / applicant did not honour undertaking to release funds on the same day / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 10.3 / Auckland Standards Committee 3 of the New Zealand Law Society v W [2011] 3 NZLR 117 (HC) / Auckland Standards Committee v Stirling [2010] NZLCDT 4 / FY v UM LCRO 239/2010 (26 October 2011) / HELD / lawyers must honour all undertakings / breach of rule 10.3 / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / relationship property dispute / complaint lawyer of undue delay in providing files / file notes had been removed or destroyed / lawyer acted inappropriately / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 4.4.1 / rule 3.4 / rule 12 / Wilson v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 2288 / uplifting files / HELD / delay in uplifting files unsatisfactory conduct / no evidence to support allegation material was removed from file / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / relationship property dispute / complaint that nothing had been achieved / lawyer had not acted in clients best interests / excessive fees / conflict of interest / Lawyers and Conveyancers (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.1 / HELD / no conflict of interest / lawyer progressed matters as was practicable / no unreasonable delays / costs ordered against lay applicant / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute between business partners / lawyer acted for both parties / complaint of conflict of interest / failure to follow instructions / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6 / rule 6.1 / rule 7 / rule 8 / rule 8.7 / Taylor v Schofield Peterson [1999] 3 NZLR 434 (HC) / Sandy v Khan LCRO 181/2009 (9 December 2009) / HELD / lawyer do not insist each party get independent legal advice / no informed consent / breach of rule 6 and 6.1 / unsatisfactory conduct / not enough evidence to determine instructions were not followed / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / judicial review proceeding / lawyer appeared for respondents / applicant not client of lawyer / complaint about lawyers conduct of proceedings / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committee) Regulations 2008, regulation 9 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 12 / third party duties / administration of justice / Standards Committee procedure / HELD / limited duties owed to third parties / instructions to lawyer protected by privilege / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / criminal appeal / lawyers acted for the Crown / allegations of misfeasance of public office / HELD / questions of torts are matters for the courts / review totally without merit / costs ordered against lay applicant / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Decision (27 June 2017)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / complainant lawyer failed to answer legal question / HELD / lawyer answer question and followed instructions / advice met standards of competence and diligence / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / relationship property dispute / caveat registered over house to pay lawyers fees / client died / complainant beneficiary under will / complaint lawyer failed to provide terms of engagement / did not advise client to take independent advice / failure to follow instructions / fees not fair and reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 5.4 / rule 9 / rule 13.3 / rule 13.4 / alternatives to litigation / HELD / lawyer provided competent service / fees fair and reasonable / other remedies available to the complainant / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
Review conducted by duly appointed delegate. Applicant demanded hearing in person. While an applicant may decline to consent to the review being completed on the papers (s206(2) LCA) the LCRO (and delegates) may direct that the hearing take place by telephone. S 206(5) provides that the LCRO may regulate his or her procedure as he or she thinks fit and the dictates of natural justice do not require hearings to be in person.The LCRO noted that many court and quasi judicial hearings are conducted by telephone and the LCRO office must ensure resources are used effectively. Applicant also demanded that he be able to have witnesses give evidence at the review hearing. LCRO reviews will generally not accept information that was not before the Standards Committee (Guideline 17 for parties to review). Review hearings are not the same as court hearings where witnesses are called and cross examined. It is rare for a witness to be allowed to attend and give evidence at a review hearing. The evid…