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

1392 items matching your search terms

  2. LCRO 68/2017 GM v BN (6 July 2017) [PDF, 219 KB]

    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)
  4. LCRO 382/2013 SC v JT (30 June 2017) [PDF, 193 KB]

    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)
  5. LCRO 47/2017 KD: Review of a prosecutorial decision (30 June 2017) [PDF, 180 KB]

    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)
  6. LCRO 3/2016 RC and RD v ZC (30 June 2017) [PDF, 123 KB]

    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)
  8. LCRO 128/2015 GBA v HCB (29 June 2017) [PDF, 197 KB]

    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)
  9. LCRO 130/2016 RB v ZB (28 June 2017) [PDF, 229 KB]

    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)
  10. LCRO 95/2013 GI v JM (28 June 2017) [PDF, 255 KB]

    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)
  11. LCRO 243/2013 ZAA v YBC (27 June 2017) [PDF, 267 KB]

    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)
  12. LCRO 319/2013 RA v ZA (27 June 2017) [PDF, 101 KB]

    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)
  16. LCRO 323/2013 AZ v BY (22 June 2017) [PDF, 220 KB]

    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)
  17. QAB v PAC, OAD and NAE LCRO 93/2015, 94/2015 and 142/2016 [PDF, 105 KB]

    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…
  18. LCRO 194/2015+56/2016 TB v HN Ltd (12 June 2017) [PDF, 144 KB]

    Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / lawyer acted as arbitrator / award issued five years after hearing / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 6 / section 65 / LCRO 191/2015 / whether Committee has jurisdiction / whether findings in the Committee amount to double jeopardy / HELD / arbitration not excluded from the Act / Committee has jurisdiction / penalty modified / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a) Decision (12 June 2017) PLUS a supplementary order dated 29 June 2017
  19. LCRO 141/2013 TM v DC (7 June 2017) [PDF, 220 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / purchase of healthcare facility / lawyer advised client to cancel contract / complaint lawyer had a conflict of interests / deducted fees from trust account / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 110(1)(b) /  Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008, regulation 9 / regulation 9.3 / regulation 10 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 5.3 / Heslop v Cousins [2007] 3 NZLR 679 (HC) / AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (6 May 2016) / duty to give objective advice / competence / HELD / lawyer gave objective advice / conflict of interest complaint speculative / lawyer entitled to deduct fees / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  23. LCRO 299/2013 DT v GB (23 May 2017) [PDF, 212 KB]

    Lawyer’s trust advanced funds through nominee company to client on two occasions — prior to and after 1 August 2008.  Standards Committee determined to take no further action in respect of the advance prior to 1 August 2008, but found unsatisfactory conduct in respect of the advance after 1 August 2008 on the basis that the lawyer had not ensured the borrower took independent advice. LCRO confirmed the Standards Committee decision, specifically noting the prohibition in Rule 5.4.3 against a lawyer entering into a financial arrangement with a client if there is a possibility of the relationship of trust and confidence being compromised. LCRO also found the advance prior to 1 August 2008 constituted unsatisfactory conduct by way of conduct unbecoming. Standards Committee penalties confirmed, with additional penalty of censure.