Search Results

1. Khan v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 6 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 239 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. 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...

3. 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...

4. SG v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 557 (5 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...plans were incorrect. SG alleges [the Architect] and S Ltd are liable for the encroachment. This claim is against S Ltd only and SG claims $30,000.00. 2. The issues I must decide are: a. Was S Ltd’s work completed with reasonable skill and care? b. If not, did S Ltd refuse, neglect or fail to remediate any failures? c. If not, was the failure of a substantial character? d. Is the amount claimed reasonable, taking into account SG’s obligation to mitigate his loss?...

5. OX v XX Standards Committee LCRO 180/2015 (4 October 2016) [pdf, 456 KB]

   ...to conduct that would be regarded by lawyers of good standing, in this case “criminal defence lawyers approved for legal aid”, as being unacceptable. [44] Counsel submits the standard prescribed under the Act is objective, given the consumer protection purpose of the Act. The interests being protected are described as those of the legally aided client and the Legal Services Commissioner. Counsel submits the Committee properly applied the correct standard in respect of both findi...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...