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:
1371 items matching your search terms
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / delay by respondent resulting in bankruptcy of applicant / respondent fined / applicant sought compensation / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 5.11 / HELD / respondent accepts breach of rule 5.11 / respondent voluntarily paid compensation / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee referred matter to the NZLCDT / failure to terminate retainer / failure to account for trust money / acting without instructions / Zhao v The Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 2622 / Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZCA 230, [2013] 3 NZLR 562 / HELD / Standards Committee not required to give reasons for referral / no concern over process followed / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute over estate / respondent acted for executor / advice of respondent led to dispute / duties owed to inform others of entitlement / HELD / respondent owed duties to executor / respondent transferred shares in land when requested / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute over insurance remediation / respondent acted for insurers / experts conference held / complaint alleges fraud / Zhao v The Legal Complaints Review Officer [2017] NZHC 1561 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2.4 / alleged fraud of respondent / HELD / respondent advancing clients’ interests / no evidence of fraud / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute between directors / respondent filed proceedings in district court / District Court Rules 2014 rule 5.38 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2.3 / rule 3 / authorisation to file / improper purpose / HELD / no authority to file proceedings / incorrect filing was improper purpose / failure to act competently / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a) and (b)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute over taxation advice / respondent emailed applicant on behalf of respondent’s clients / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2.7 / rule 6 / threats / improper purpose / refusal to continue corresponding / HELD / email not capable of threat / duty of respondent not to correspond further / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / fee dispute / decision sent to another partner of firm / applicants disputed personal responsibility / HELD / applicants had duties as partners in firm / lawyers have personal responsibility towards obligations / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint over handling of estate / HELD / no merit to complaints / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / fee complaint / complaint that respondent did not follow instructions / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 9.1 / HELD / fees fair and reasonable / respondent acting under instruction / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Dated 01 November 2017
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / relationship property division / respondent acted for both parties prior / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2008 rule 6.1 / conflict of interest / applicant unaware of undertaking / HELD / not acting for applicant / no conflict of interest / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / HELD / complaint raises no conduct issues / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / complaint over respondents conduct as trustee / fees charged as trustee / HELD / respondent not providing regulated services / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2008 rule 2 / rule 2.1 / rule 2.2 / rule 2.3 / respondent acted for applicants neighbours / letter sent to applicants / applicants considered letter a threat / applicant sought disclosure from respondent / HELD / no improper threat / respondent acting under instruction / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / applicants sought immigration assistance / visa application not filed / applicants sought misconduct finding, damages / section 156 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / HELD / applicants vulnerable / anxiety and distress compensation / letter not improper threat / Committee’s decision modified and confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / complaint arose from administration of estates / complaint over costs / section 110 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / conflict of interest / HELD / no breach of s 110 / fees inadequately reported / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / fees / costs assessor not appointed / HELD / Committee’s directed to reconsider complaint / section 209
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / property transfer / delay in transfer / acting without instruction Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2008 rule 6.1 / rule 7 / rule 7.1 / failure to act / conflict of interest / existence of retainer / HELD / instructions not carried out / conflict of interest / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / alleged copyright infringement / threat made by respondent / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2008 rule 2.7 / improper purpose / HELD / threat made for improper purpose / respondent had apologised / fine / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Own motion enquiry / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / relationship property division / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2008 rule 10.3 / breach of undertaking / failure to respond to correspondence / HELD / undertaking breached / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / fee complaint / acting without instruction / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008 reg 29 / HELD / fees reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / purchase of business / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2008 rule 3 / competence of respondent / supervision of legal executive / HELD / applicant attended to matters without advice / respondents involvement minimal / supervision appropriate / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint arose from leaky building litigation / whether applicants’ client consented to join litigation / whether solicitor-client relationship existed / HELD / reasonable for respondent to proceed on basis of authority / no separate duty or conflict of interest / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / respondent’s client lawyer / respondent’s client had name suppression / applicant made a complaint about respondent’s client / respondent claims applicant breach suppression and was in contempt / applicant complains about respondent’s actions / HELD / respondent’s claim was arguable / complaint lacked merit / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Date of Decision: 28 September 2017