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

1440 items matching your search terms

  3. 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.
  9. Law Firm A v Standards Committee LCRO 319/2012 (31 May 2016) [PDF, 72 KB]

    Own motion investigation by NZLS Inspectorate resulted in finding of unsatisfactory conduct for breach of rule 17(1) against all partners, a $500 fine each, and each partner to pay $200 by way of costs. The trust account had become overdrawn on 3 occasions, there were 235 dormant balances dating back to 2002,  and the partnership acknowledged that there had been a failing to account regularly to clients in accordance with requirements of reg12(7) of the Trust Account regulations. The Committee also referred to breaches of s337 of the LCA. The LCRO noted that the consumer protection principles of the LCA meant that compliance with the regulations and the Act relating to management of client funds should be stringently enforced. There was therefore little room to rank breaches on a spectrum as the Committee had, by referring to some breaches as being at the lower end of the spectrum resulting in no further action being taken , with others at the higher end. The Committee viewed the overdrawn trust account seriously, and treated this as breaches of reg17(1) (monthly certificates). The LCRO noted that the breaches were in fact breaches of reg 6 (requirement to advance partnership funds to cover overdraws) but did not amend the finding or penalty. The failure to account to clients (reg12(7)) and the dormant balances flowed from a general lack of oversight and checking. LCRO reversed the determination of the Standards Committee to take no further action in this regard, and made a single finding of unsatisfactory conduct for these breaches. LCRO noted that s337 did not impose a mandatory requirement to pay unclaimed money to the IRD, therefore not correct to refer to a breach of the section. The significant delay in processing both the Standards Committee investigation and determination, and the LCRO review (review application lodged ( December 2012) meant the imposition of further penalties could not be justified as the firm had indicated that remedial steps were in …
  11. Official Assignee v IL LCRO 197/15 (24 May 2016) [PDF, 56 KB]

    The OA in bankruptcy complained that IL had provided incompetent advice to a bankrupt concerning his ability to act as an executor of his mother's estate, and advice relating to the bankrupt's ability to renounce his interest as a beneficiary in the Estate. The OA argued that this advice resulted in unnecessary costs to the Estate, thereby reducing the amount to be paid to the OA in respect of the bankrupt's share in the Estate. The Standards Committee declined to take any action in respects of the OA's complaints primarily because the majority of the conduct complained about took place after IL had been struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors. The Standards Committee determined it therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints, as IL was not a "lawyer" as that term is defined in the LCA - (the definition of a lawyer in the LCA is a person who holds a current practising certificate, which IL did not.) The LCRO considered that the Standards Committee reasoning was irrefutable, but expressed some surprise that the Standards Committee had made no mention of the fact that IL was apparently in breach of the LCA by acting as a lawyer when he was not a lawyer. The Committee had even declined jurisdiction to consider IL’s bills of costs, because he was not a lawyer. The LCRO returned this aspect of the complaint to the Standards Committee to consider and take such action as it considered necessary, which could be no more than to refer the matter to the Law Society, which is the body to enforce these provisions in the Act. The LCRO noted however, that if further investigations revealed that IL had been employed by a law firm, then his conduct did come within the jurisdiction of the Standards Committee, and directed the Standards Committee to refer the matter back to him if this scenario eventuated, as his decision otherwise confirming the Standards Committee decision, would need to be recalled because it would be based on incorrect facts.
  12. RV v ZL LCRO 85/2012 (23 May 2016) [PDF, 70 KB]

    Lawyer acted for company on instructions from sole director on the sale of a property owned by the company to a company controlled by the director's brother in law. Complainant was a shareholder in the vendor company and argued that the lawyer should have told him about the proposed sale and declined to act. Lawyer was aware of a major falling out between the complainant and the director. LCRO confirmed the decision of the Standards Committee that the lawyer's duty was to his client and any duty he owed to the complainant as a former client, was covered by rule 8.7 CCCR. LCRO acknowledged that faced with this set of circumstances, some lawyers may have felt uncomfortable in accepting instructions to act, "but a sense of discomfort does not easily present a reason…to decline to act and betray " the client's confidence. LCRO also took the view that any challenge to the director's instructions that the transaction was not a major transaction in terms of the Companies Act should be made through the Court.
  15. AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (6 May 2016) [PDF, 109 KB]

    Complaint / matter reconsidered by LCRO / Chapman v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2015] NZHC 1500 / A v Z  LCRO 40/2009 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 3.4 / rule 10 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 110 / section 113 / lack of professionalism / fee exceeding quote / deduction of fees / HELD / no action regarding lack of professionalism / no issue regarding quote / entitled to deduct fees / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)