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

1371 items matching your search terms

  4. UK v WM LCRO 144/2013 (2 September 2016) [PDF, 104 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint about statements in article / criticism of judiciary / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 138(1)(c) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2 / rule 2.8 / rule 10 / LP v CS LCRO 170/2011 obligation to report a lawyer / context of comments / vexatious complaint / HELD / comments part of public debate / no conduct issues / complaint vexatious / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  6. UK v VL LCRO 142/2013 (2 September 2016) [PDF, 257 KB]

    Complaint/ Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint about statements in article / criticism of judiciary / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 138(1)(c) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2 / rule 2.8 / rule 10 / LP v CS LCRO 170/2011 obligation to report a lawyer / context of comments / vexatious complaint / HELD / comments part of public debate / no conduct issues / complaint vexatious / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  8. ZA v YB LCRO 164/2013 (31 August 2016) [PDF, 93 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint over delay in uplifting files / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 / rule 4.4 / rule 4.4.1 rule 10 / rule 10.3 / treating other lawyers with courtesy and respect / urgency in obtaining files / communication with former client / HELD / no undue delay in providing files / proper to communicate with former client to confirm instructions / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a) 
  13. AB v IJ, OBO and EF LCRO 203/2014 (29 August 2016) [PDF, 312 KB]

    Tenor of Standards Committee determination subjective, personal and pejorative, inconsistent with terminology of the LCA. Determination reversed. Finding of unsatisfactory conduct not challenged by applicant, and reinstated (for different reasons) on review. Standards Committee ordered lawyer to pay costs of $5,000. Costs not part of penalty, and should reflect costs and expenses of and incidental to inquiry or investigation.LCRO directed Standards Committee to give lawyer the opportunity to make submissions on costs prior to making an order.
  21. WL & BN v SD LCRO 106/2015 (5 July 2016) [PDF, 65 KB]

    Lawyer sent a letter marked "without prejudice save as to costs" to arbitrator prior to arbitrator reaching decision on substantive matters. Complaint by opposing lawyer that this constituted a breach of r 13.9 of the CCCR.  Standards Committee considered whether lawyer had breached privilege and found breach of r13.9. LCRO advised parties of his preliminary view that r13.9 related only to the issue of privilege in the context of discovery and called for submissions / comments. Respondent (complainant lawyer_ responded that r13.9 was irrelevant and that the issue fell to be determined in accordance with general professional obligations (rules not exhaustive) and rule 2 (requirement to uphold the rule of law). Applicant's counsel agreed with LCRO preliminary review, observing that disputes over the status of without prejudice documents were commonplace and were to be resolved by the judge or arbitrator. He considered it would be 'intolerable' for litigators to be exposed to adverse di…
  24. GN v HJ LCRO 30/2015 (22 June 2016) [PDF, 69 KB]

    Ms GN has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] dated 15 December 2014. The Committee found that Mr HJ’s failure to provide information to Ms GN contravened rule 3.5 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. The Committee concluded the fees charged for services provided to Ms GN were fair and reasonable pursuant to rules 9 and 9.1, and decided that further action on the other issues Ms GN raised in her complaint was not necessary or appropriate. A finding of unsatisfactory conduct was recorded against Mr HJ, and he was fined $500.