Search Results

1. LCRO 1/2021 NB v GP (31 May 2022) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...an examination of Mr NB’s complaint is r 3, which directs that in providing regulated services to a client, a lawyer must always act competently and in a timely manner consistent with the terms of the retainer and the duty to take reasonable care. [33] In LCRO 205/2015, the Review Officer addressed the factors a Review Officer may consider, when addressing complaint that a lawyer has failed to act competently. Paragraphs [34] to [42] following, are adopted from that decision.5...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 87 H v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...and liquidation proceedings in relation to H and C. [14] The application is opposed by RPW. [15] H’s application relied on alleged breaches of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 1.20 of the High Court Rules 2016, the Evidence Act 2006, and the Crimes Act 1961. The reliance on the last two statutes was not explained in the application, or H’s submissions, and they do not need to be considered an...

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

   ...the Committee that a fine is appropriate and I consider that the sum of $3,500 sufficiently meets the seriousness of this conduct. That sum to be paid to the New Zealand Law Society within 30 days of the date of this decision. [145] I have given careful thought as to whether the censure should remain, and have decided, with some reluctance, to reverse that order. [146] The Committee was clearly concerned about Mr WE’s conduct in (as it found) blatantly acting against former clien...

4. National Standards Committee v Toner [2013] NZLCDT 38 [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...too, may indicate that a lesser penalty will be sufficient to protect the public.” [41] In the Daniels6 matter, the Full Court stressed the necessity in examining whether a lesser intervention will suffice. [22] ...Tribunals are required to carefully consider alternatives to striking off a practitioner. If the purposes of imposing disciplinary sanctions can be achieved short of striking off then it is the lesser alternative that should be adopted as the proportionate response .....

5. Bookings and what to expect

   ...prohibition or judicial order restricting publication. The suppression order can apply to the defendant or another party in the case, such as the victim. You must always keep all details relating to a case confidential, but you should be particularly careful if there’s a suppression order. You may face legal action, including a fine or imprisonment, if you breach a suppression order by disclosing any of the suppressed details. Update your contact details You can update your contact details by...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. Lawyers & service providers >
   3. Service providers >
   4. Interpreting in courts & tribunals

6. Auckland Standards Committee v Sharma [2015] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...well known that the Disciplinary Tribunal’s penalty function does not have as its primary purpose punishment, although orders inevitably will have some such effect. The predominant purposes are to advance the public interest (which includes “the protection of the public”), to maintain professional standards, to impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her duties, and to provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases.” [40] It was Daniels8 also which reminds th...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Hong [2020] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...submission of Mr Collins for the Standards Committee is that the substance of the misconduct findings is that Mr Hong betrayed his clients, under the guise of a benevolent financial rescue package. In doing so, he not only failed in his obligation to protect their interests but in fact caused harm to their interests. Mr Collins argued that this case is a textbook example of the reason for the existence of rules prohibiting lawyers’ personal financial dealings with their clients,...

8. Ward v Maccol Developments Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...E2 and B2 of the regulations made under the Building Act 1991. [36] The Owners also claim against the First respondent, Maccol in tort. The Owners say at law, Maccol owed them as immediate (and subsequent) purchasers, a non-delegable duty of care as the developer of their property to ensure that proper care and skill was exercised in the construction of the dwellinghouse on the development property. [37] The Owners claim that Maccol breached the duty of care by failing to ex...

9. Suresh v Elizabeth [2019] NZIACDT 30 (10 May 2019) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...submit the expression of interest to Immigration New Zealand on or before 28 September 2016 while he was eligible for automatic selection, thereby providing services negligently, or services which were not professional, diligent, and done with due care and in a timely manner, in breach of cl 1. (3) Allowed unlicensed individuals to provide immigration advice in breach of the Act and also in breach of cl 2(e) and 3(c). (4) Failed to have a refund policy, in breach of cl 19(k)....

10. Legal Complaints Review Officer v Hong [2013] NZLCDT 9 [pdf, 224 KB]

    ...to be poor advice and to save them from unnecessary cost. He considered that it would act to test Mr Deliu’s confidence in continuing the Ma proceedings. Mr Hong said that he likened it to a contingency fee, and that it had the advantage of protecting (as he saw it) Mr and Mrs Ma and testing Mr Deliu. We agree that the proposal was unusual and on its face is unprofessional, but the matter was raised for consideration by the Complaints Service in the context of a complaint/c...