Search Results

1. J v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 7 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...interest against Ms Khetarpal’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [45] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [46] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pr...

2. AN v DH LCRO 119/2015 (23 December 2015) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...decision, the Family Court’s comments that Ms AN’s “behaviour was out of character” and that the Court viewed “Ms AN’s withdrawal from the lawyer for Child panel as an unfortunate outcome”. [43] The Committee then focused on the consumer protection purposes of the Act saying: 8. Consumers of legal services need to be protected from behaviour which does not meet a lawyer’s professional obligations. Given there is an overriding professional duty to the court, the fact s...

3. HIJ v RST and UVW (Publication) [2013] NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...the Act the Tribunal prohibited publication of the names of all the parties and of any details which might identify them. That order was made on the grounds that identification of the parties could lead to the identification of the children whose care was the subject of the proceedings in the Family Court. [4] Having now heard all the evidence we are of the view that the interim order should be made final not only because the identity of the children might be revealed but also becaus...

4. Penzance v Runcorn LCRO 170 / 2009 (10 February 2010) [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...the nature of the relationship with Mr Penzance and various intimate details. [9] At the hearing Mr Penzance referred to the applicable legislation and professional rules. In particular he referred to r 8.7 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care which prohibit the use of confidential information. The rule states: 8.7 A lawyer must not use information that is confidential to a client (including a former client) for the benefit of any other person or of the lawyer. 8.7.1 A lawyer...

5. LCRO 137/2015 RR v BN, SF, WE, IM and PL (3 August 2018) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...observation that Ms RR misapprehends how trusts can be formed, the logic that pervades Ms RR’s complaints and her application for review can fairly be described as deeply flawed. [29] In addition to the other materials available on review, I have carefully considered Ms RR’s comments at the review hearing. I have been unable to distil any standards issue that arises from any of the concerns Ms RR raises. It is noted that most if not all of her initial concerns have been consid...

6. EBT v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 92 (16 October 2015) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...interest against Mr Mudaliar’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [25] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [26] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pro...

7. LCRO 188/2019 QK v RJ (13 May 2020) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...the Executors) refused to provide her with a copy of her mother’s will and did not answer or acknowledge Mr YG’s letters of 6 and 10 September 2019. Ms QK’s complaint concludes: I would appreciate your intervention so my position may be protected. [7] In a letter dated 14 October 2019, Ms QK asked NZLS’ Complaints Service for confirmation that her complaint had been received. She was told it had been. Ms QK was invited to provide a copy of the will, and to identify the la...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Mr G [2024] NZLCDT 16 (31 May 2024) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...“least restrictive intervention” enunciated in the Daniels 2 case. [24] A rehabilitative approach can involve requirements for further education, mentoring and other forms of monitoring, which have a dual role of assisting the lawyer while protecting the consumer of legal services. [25] Finally, if suspension is under consideration, we carefully assess whether the lawyer is a fit and proper person to practise the law. In order to impose suspension the Tribunal members must be...

9. [2024] NZREADT 45 – Parmar v REAA, KB & LB (20 November 2024) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...[96]. 4 (b) raising industry standards: (c) providing accountability through a disciplinary process that is independent, transparent, and effective. [15] The focus of professional disciplinary proceedings is not punishment, but the protection of the public:6 …It is well established that professional disciplinary proceedings are civil and not criminal in nature. That is because the purpose of statutory disciplinary proceedings for various occupations is not to punish t...

10. BORA Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill [pdf, 437 KB]

    ...impact on bodily integrity has not been considered in detail in New Zealand, courts in the United States and Canada have been proceeded on the basis that forfeiture does constitute punishment and is accordingly subject to scrutiny against constitutional protections. In any event, we consider that even if forfeiture orders were to be considered "treatment" or "punishment" that is subject to s 9 of the BORA, the impact of such orders is not such as to constitute "dis...