Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Barton [2020] NZLCDT 28 (10 September 2020) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...Barton’s last employers gave her a complimentary reference.12 After taking that employment, she advised her new employers that “she was under some sort of disciplinary matter.”13 She worked there for five months. They found her to be “honest, pleasant, punctual and a good worker.”14 [25] We accept the Standards Committee’s submission that the primary purpose of the present proceedings is not punishment15 but the maintenance of professional standards, to denounce the con...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2020] NZLCDT 18 (30 June 2020) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...Law Society. Censure [45] We record in this decision the Tribunal’s formal censure of the practitioner. He has failed in his obligations to his profession to abide by an order made by his profession’s disciplinary body following a guilty plea being entered by him in December 2016. In doing so, he has seriously fallen short in his professional obligations. This censure forms part of the practitioner’s record. Orders 1. Mr Burcher will be suspended for two months from 1...

3. LCRO 133/2019 HM v RN (24 February 2020) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...instructions to him at the time, in Mr RN’s view, Mr HM had no arguable defence to the charges. Mr HM instructed Mr RN to seek a sentencing indication, which Mr RN did. Mr HM’s instructions remained as they had been, to maintain a not guilty plea and await a jury trial date. [8] Mr RN considered himself unable to continue to represent Mr HM and unable to delay trial further. Mr RN sought and obtained the Court’s leave to withdraw as counsel for Mr HM. [9] Over the cours...

4. [2021] NZREADT 48 - Kan (30 August 2021) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...July 2021 (following service by email on him of the Committee’s penalty submissions): To whom it may concern Re: enclosed information I am in no financial position to appeal this matter and may be put into an undesirable outcome. I make a plea for clemency and ask for name suppression as it will only cause distress and hurt to what is left of my immediate family. I truly and unreservedly apologise for this indiscretion. It has taken an immense toll on my health and is affect...

5. J Ltd v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 170 (17 April 2024) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...their business premises. Did Mr O assume the risk in leaving his vehicle? 22. Mr X argued that Mr O assumed the risk to his own vehicle in deciding to leave it in the shared parking lot, pointing to U Ltd’s reception sign to this effect. 23. A plea of volenti non fit injuria (no harm is done to one who consents) can succeed if the defendant can establish that the plaintiff freely and voluntarily agreed to take upon himself the risk of the harm which in fact eventuated, being fully...

6. Auckland Standards Committee v Holmes [2011] NZLCDT 31 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...balances, he was entitled to take fees for costs on the timesheet which 5 had not previously been billed, or having been previously written down, in order to recover the cost of the time expended. Mr Collins for the NZLS submitted that this plea “aggravates rather than mitigates his position”. [12] Mr Pidgeon QC, for the practitioner, suggested that a practitioner might be forgiven for thinking that the cost of locating the clients and returning the money or paying to...

7. LCRO 186/2017 and 84/2018 WE v VF (28 May 2019) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...appeal took place in the Court of Appeal on [date], judgment was delivered on [date] 2017 and written reasons were released on [date] 2017.2 [17] The result was that Mr VF’s challenge to the private prosecution was unsuccessful. [18] Mr VF pleaded guilty to the assault charge shortly after [Date] 2017 and was remanded for sentence on [date]2017. Mr WE did not appear as prosecution counsel when Mr VF pleaded guilty as he had other commitments, and he instructed an agent to app...

8. National Standards Committee 1 v Deliu [2016] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 408 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZLCDT 26 LCDT 008/12 BETWEEN NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE No. 1 Applicant AND FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU of Auckland, Lawyer CHAIR Ms M Scholtens QC MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Ms S Hughes QC Ms J Gray Mr W Smith Mr P Shaw HEARING at Auckland DATE 30 September – 9 October, 10 December 2015 (with LCDT 010/10) DATE OF DECISION 15 September 2016 APPEARANCES Mr

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Martin [2010] NZLCDT 17 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...the offending occurred over a 16 month period and on nine separate occasions with clear premeditation. (d) We note that Her Honour was not persuaded by a late expression of remorse which she saw as self serving and we note also that the guilty pleas came very late in the piece. [37] The second matter to which we wish to draw attention is that in the course of that sentencing process Mr Martin’s counsel submitted that he was a person of good character. That led to an affidavit...

10. Otago Standards Committee v Mawhinney [2012] NZLCDT 19 [pdf, 123 KB]

    ...That sub-section provides that a lawyer is guilty of misconduct if his conduct at a time when he is providing regulated services is conduct that would reasonably be regarded by lawyers of good standing as disgraceful or dishonourable. [2] A plea of guilty was made, and the matter was set down for a penalty hearing on 5 July 2012. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal reserved its decision. It did this partly because Mr Mawhinney was not present at the hearing, and as...