Ministry of Justice

Complaint / Committee unsatisfactory conduct / allegation of deceit / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 13.8.1 / Medcalf v Mardell (No 2) [2000] All ER (D) 1969 / Schmidt v Pepper Custodians [2012] NZCA 565 / reasonable grounds / HELD / reasonable grounds for pleading deceit / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)

Decision Dated (23 March 2017)

Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / lawyer’s trust account obligations / firm has no trust account / overpayment of fees / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 3 / rule 9.3 / rule 9.6 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 regulation 9 / regulation 10 / final invoice / fees in advance / delayed refund / issues not part of complaints / HELD / obliged to hold client monies in trust account / failed to advise on costs contribution / no final invoice / no finding on trust account issue / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / complainant seeks compensation / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 156 / HELD / compensation limited to $25,000 / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

A Standards Committee determination was quashed by the High Court after the Committee acknowledged breaches of natural justice in that the Deputy Convener of the Committee participated in the decision while at the same time having made a complaint about the lawyer. Mr ZA’s complaint about the lawyer was that his conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, or incompetent, such that the lawyer ought to have recused himself. He alleged the lawyer had brought the profession into disrepute. The Standards Committee determined to take no further action on the complaint on the grounds that the lawyer was not providing regulated services and his conduct was not in bad faith. Mr ZA applied for a review on the grounds that the Committee had erred in applying the test that a lawyer must be providing regulated services, whilst the test was that the conduct complained about must be conduct connected with the provision of regulated services. The LCRO did not disagree with that proposition, but did not ag…

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint lawyers caused embarrassment / serving papers / lack of independent witness / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2.3 / HELD / lawyer did not seek to cause embarrassment / other methods of serving papers attempted / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Consideration of Reg 39 Trust Account regulations.  LCRO confirmed Standards Committee determination that an unsecured loan is not a “contributory security” for the purposes of reg 39(1) and the Nominee Company Rules are not therefore applicable.

A decision was issued in respect of this review on 18 August 2016 setting out the relevant facts and conclusions arising from Mr GK’s complaint. The review was determined on the basis that there had been unsatisfactory conduct on Mr ZR’s part pursuant to s 12 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act).

Miss MB has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] to take no further action in respect of her complaint concerning the conduct of the respondent, Ms PF.

Decision (30 November 2016)

Mr VH, a member of the Board of trustees of LD Trust ([Text removed]), has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee in which the Committee decided that further action was not necessary or appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, which dealt with Mr CN’s conduct in relation to instructions he had received about trust governance issues.

Mr Faleauto has applied for a review of a direction to publish his name, in the context of a summary of facts, outcome, and orders following Mr DE’s complaints about his conduct and service. The direction was made by the X Standards Committee X, pursuant to s 142(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act), with the prior approval of the Board of the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) given on [Date] 2015, pursuant to reg 30 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committee) Regulations 2008 (the Committee Regulations).

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint lawyer incompetent / inadequate supervision / misleading court / conflict of interest / failure to respond to client / fees complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 5.11 / rule 13.5 / GL v UE LCRO 206/2010  (21 October 2011) / HELD / Office not correct forum for some complaints / fees fair and reasonable / breach of rule 5.11 / unsatisfactory conduct /  Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)