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

1424 items matching your search terms

  6. LCRO 263/2015 DH v EI (12 May 2017) [PDF, 124 KB]

    Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / property dispute / payment of money into trust account / lawyer sought advice from another practitioner / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 110 / New Zealand Law Society v B [2013] NZCA 156 / BI v CW LCRO 23/2012 / dispute over amounts to be paid / instructions conflicted with judgment / HELD / reasonable for lawyer to rely on advice / attempts to resolve dispute / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
  11. BG v HL LCRO 71/2013 [PDF, 221 KB]

    Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / criminal matter / saw victim and offender at same time / guilty plea / withdrawing complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 199 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 13.10.4 / Harold v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2012] NZHC 145, [2012] 2 NZLR 559 / role of LCRO / prosecution witness / HELD / Office obliged to continue  with complaint / breach of rule 13.10.4 / unsatisfactory conduct / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
  16. AB v CD LCRO 332/2013 [PDF, 264 KB]

    Complaint / Committee unsatisfactory conduct / conflict of interest / indemnity insurance / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 6.1 / rule 7 / Nicholson v Icepak Coolstores Ltd [1999] 3 NZLR 475 (HC) / Mercantile Mutual Insurance (NSW Workers Compensation) Ltd v Murray [2004] NSWCA 151. (2004) 13 ANZ Ins Cas 61-612 / client care letter / duty of confidence / HELD / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
  17. IJ v KL LCRO 190/2016 [PDF, 219 KB]

    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)
  21. ZA v YB LCRO 39/2016 (15-February 2017) [PDF, 171 KB]

    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…