Search Results

1. GU v TI LCRO 258 / 2010 (19 December 2011) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...that the work undertaken by Mr TI was consistent with the fees charged. 5 [31] However, it formed the view that Mr GU did not receive a letter of engagement at the appropriate time and in accordance with Rule 3.4 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules. It came to the view that the terms of engagement were issued after the bills were issued and that this constituted unsatisfactory conduct. It noted that this conduct was “at the lower end of the scale of offending”. [32...

2. Robinson v CAC 20006 & Wagner [2014] NZREADT 57 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...Trust had not been inserted in the listing agreement, and the complainant had not signed it. Advice had been given to the agency that both the trustees must sign all contractual documents. The licensee, as branch manager, should have exercised more care, competence and diligence in the listing of the property. The Committee said: “[4.9] The Committee finds that the Licensee in his position as branch manager of the Agency should have exercised more care, competence and diligence in...

3. Southland Standards Committee v P [2022] NZLCDT 12 (28 April 2022) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...the Standards Committee thought it saw. Instead of discovering a practitioner (“P”) who failed to act in the best interests of clients or engaged in multiple professional failings, as put by the Standards Committee, we saw a conscientious, caring practitioner who provided valuable and valued services. We find that P did not take advantage of their vulnerabilities. [2] The Standards Committee became interested in that part of P’s practice dealing with elderly clients. A ke...

4. EL1 Ltd & Anor as Trustees of the Eurolife Trust v Lay [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...there is no argument about the fact that Mr Lay was involved with the construction work on this project. The Owners claim that Mr Lay failed to manage or supervise the work properly, which led to the defects, which was in breach of his duty of care owed to subsequent owners of the dwelling. 3.6 The fourth respondent is the company of Jessop Townsend Limited (“JTL”), which the Owners say was the architectural practice that undertook the design work, prepared the drawings fo...

5. Handisides v CAC 10030 & Cruden [2011] NZREADT 36 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...unrestricted access to the property prior to this agreement becoming unconditional “in order that they may establish the suitability of further building sites”. Mr Handisides explained to the Tribunal that this last condition was inserted to protect the Crudens and to make sure that they were able to satisfy themselves as to the setbacks from the boundaries required by the Tasman District Council and as to the general suitability of building sites on the property. [5] The dispute...

6. [2021] NZREADT 12 - Walker v The Real Estate Agents Authority & Hickson (26 March 2021) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...had intended to make an offer at $1.050 million, but as a result of Mr Hickson’s actions, offered only $1.025 million. [7] The Committee found that Mr Hickson had breached r 9.1 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”) by failing to act in the appellants’ best interests and in accordance with their instructions. [8] The second matter concerned the Agency’s dealing with the deposit paid by the purchasers. The appellan...

7. UK v WM LCRO 144/2013 (2 September 2016) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...laid a complaint to the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) alleging Mr [WM] had “failed to fulfil his ethical obligation” and report Dr [YB] to the Lawyers Complaints Service pursuant to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the rules) 2.8 or 2.9, and had instead made public comments which “hurt the reputation of the justice system”.4 [5] Mr [UK] referred to the High Court decision in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society 5 saying the Court had...

8. LCRO 167/2016 LQ v TM (13 May 2019) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his or her own view on the 2 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 8.7. 3 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]-[41]. 6 evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for...

9. NT v Standards Committee LCRO 131/2014 (21 November 2014) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...notice of hearing said that the nature of the alleged conduct the Committee intended to consider included: (i) whether the advice and representation Mr NT provided to [the complainants] was: • inconsistent with her duty to exercise reasonable care • fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent lawyer; and/or • was negligent or incompetent to such a degree that it reflects on her fitness...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v Kennelly [2022] NZLCDT 31 (1 September 2022) [pdf, 130 KB]

    ...purpose of the s 156(1)(c)11 power to order a practitioner to apologise. [14] The performative nature of apology, in the present case, must serve the purposes of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (the Act) and the associated Conduct and Client Care Rules. At stake is the reputation of the legal profession which is a necessary adjunct to maintaining public confidence in the profession’s services.12 Associated with that, courteous dealings are required so that the status of the...