Ministry of Justice

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / property purchase / complaint lawyer failed to advise about electricity easements / did not supply terms of engagement / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committee) Regulations 2008, regulation 29 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 1.2 / rule 3 / rule 7 / rule 7.1 / rule 9 / rule 9.1 / whether lawyer billed applicant twice for same work / whether invoices should be treated separately / HELD / lawyer failed to advise clients about easements / invoices should be considered together / fees not fair and reasonable / breach of rule 3 / breach of rule 7.1 / unsatisfactory conduct / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / property purchase / property sharing agreement / complaint lawyer was acting for both parties to agreement / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3.4 / rule 6 / rule 6.1 / Pegrum v Fatharly (1996) 14 WAR 92 (SC) / conflict of interest / whether lawyer acting for both parties / HELD / lawyer acted for both parties / conflict of interest / lawyer did not provide applicant terms of engagement / breach of rule 3.4 / breach of rule 6.1 / unsatisfactory conduct / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / separation agreement / applicant became liable for a tax bill / complaint lawyer provided incorrect advice / Limitation Act 1950 / HELD / lawyer raised Limitation Act issues with the client / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / care of children / applicant not client of lawyer / complaint that lawyer had conflict of interest / threatened applicant / acted inconsistently with instructions / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.7 / rule 12 / respect and courtesy / HELD / lawyer did not issue a threat / no evidence to support complaints / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / lawyer had been suspended from practice / complaint that lawyer provided poor service / increased fees / HELD / complaints vague / no evidence to support allegations / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / property purchase / sale of business / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, regulation 29 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.1 / whether fees exceeded quote / HELD / each fee relates to a separate matter / fees do not exceed $2,000 / Office does not have jurisdiction to consider complaints about fees below $2,000 / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / property purchase / complaint lawyer did not provide GST advice / Goods and Services Tax Act 1985, section 21A / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 1.2 / rule 3 / whether GST advice was part of retainer / HELD / GST adjustment rules not well known at the time / reasonable to expect lawyer to suggest client seek accountancy advice / content of memorandum was not professional / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

14 November 2018     Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / own motion investigation by Committee / lawyer claimed a lien over former client’s passport / Passports Act 1992, section 33 / Vallant Hooker & Partners v Proceedings Commissioner [2001] 2 NZLR 357 (HC)  / Xu v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 430,  (2009) 236 FLR 480 / SM v TK LCRO 124/2014 (31 January 2018) / HELD / retaining passports is conduct lawyers of good standing would find unacceptable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct against B / both B and O lawyers / employment dispute / complaint B used legal processes for improper purposes / lacked respect and courtesy / misled the court / complaint O communicated directly with B’s client / O used the complaints process for an improper purpose / Employment Court Regulations 2000, regulation 42 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.3 / rule 10.2 / rule 13.1 / rule 13.2 / rule 13.3 / rule 13.9.3 / proper standards of professionalism / litigation tactics / HELD / B’s litigation tactics do not amount to bullying / no evidence that B’s conduct was inappropriate or that B made threats / no evidence that B used legal processes for improper purposes / B was acting on instructions / Committee’s decision reversed with regards to B’s conduct / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / settlement of a business dispute / complaint lawyer did not protect their client’s interests / failed to act competently / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 9 / whether agreement fit for purpose / HELD / agreement provided dispute resolution processes / representation competent / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / liquidation of companies / lawyer instructed by liquidator / complaint that lawyer disclosed privileged or confidential information / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 13 / rule 13.2.1 / rule 13.9.1 / rule 13.9.4 / discovery obligations / duty to treat others involved in the court process with respect / HELD / lawyer was not acting  for applicant / discovery involved large amounts of material / lawyer did not lack respect for applicant’s privacy / nothing more the lawyer could have done / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / will dispute / applicant estate beneficiary / complaint lawyer provided incorrect advice / incorrectly recorded time spent on file / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / rule 9.1 / third party duties / HELD / limited duties owed to third parties / applicant not a client of the lawyer / not entitled to know advice given to executors / no evidence to support allegations / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Date of decision: 15 October 2018