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:
1387 items matching your search terms
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)
Decision (16 December 2016)
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.
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / complaint about will / failure to inform beneficiary / inadequate supervision / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 11.3 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 regulation 12 / non-lawyer employee / whether lawyers providing regulated services / HELD / employee did not require close supervision / lawyers providing regulated services / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
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).
Mr KV has applied for a review of a decision by the [Place] Standards Committee [X], which decided to take no further action on Mr KV’s complaints about Mr LA.
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.
Mr JR has applied for a review of a decision by the National Standards Committee to take no further action in respect of his complaint concerning the conduct of Mr ST who, like Mr JR, is a lawyer practising in Auckland.
Decision (30 November 2016)
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 Ms GH’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 25 February 2015, pursuant to reg 30 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008 (the Committee Regulations).
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).
Lawyer issued proceedings personally against another lawyer and his client alleging maintenance / champerty, abuse of process, unlawful conspiracy to injure and defamation. The other lawyer had previously complained about the first lawyer, and those complaints were part of charges brought against the first lawyer before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. The complainant (second lawyer) alleged the first lawyer had commenced proceedings for the purpose of intimidating him and his client, and to gain discovery of his files. Standards Committee agreed, and found unsatisfactory conduct by reason of breach of r 2.3 CCCR ( legal processes to be used for proper purposes only.) Committee also found breaches of rr10 and 13.2. Applicant argued that the CCCR did not apply because he was not providing regulated services. LCRO agreed the lawyer was not providing regulated services, but CCCR apply according to their terms - EA v ABO LCRO 237/2010 applied. LCRO reversed finding of un…
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)
By reason of a breach of rule 9 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 and pursuant to s 12(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, Ms CN’s conduct in respect of the matters addressed in paragraphs [58] to [122] constitutes unsatisfactory conduct.
Mrs EA has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee dated 8 June 2015 in which the Committee found there had been unsatisfactory conduct on the part of Ms NR. The Committee imposed consequential orders under s 156(1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) ordering Ms NR to pay compensation of $5,000 and apologise to Mrs EA, pay costs of $1,000 to the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) and reprimanding her.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / relationship property and custody dispute / complaint over serving documents at workplace / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 10.2 / rule 12 / communicating directly with another lawyers client / respect and courtesy to third parties / HELD / no direct communication / serving documents caused embarrassment / breach of rule 12 / unsatisfactory conduct / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is reversed. The practitioner is found to be guilty of unsatisfactory conduct pursuant to s 12(c) of the Act.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision is modified to record that there has been unsatisfactory conduct on Mr OX’s part pursuant to s 12(b).
The application for review is dismissed.
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / conflict of interest / jurisdiction of LCRO / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 12 / courtesy to third party / HELD / limited duties owed to third parties / no evidence of conflict of interest / Office has no jurisdiction / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)