Search Results

1. CN v EE LCRO 122 / 2011 (22 October 2013) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...referred to the costs incurred by the beneficiaries in having to engage their own lawyer to ensure Mrs EE did her job thoroughly. The review issue is whether the Committee was right in making no adverse finding. [36] The Conduct and Client Care Rules13 set out professional standards expected of lawyers, which also cover legal executives. Those contained in Chapter 3 impose a duty to act competently, in a timely manner consistent with the terms of the retainer and the duty to t...

2. J. Kim v K. E. H. Kim [2016] NZIACDT 32 (22 June 2016) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...competed with the information required. She submitted that LTB Visa application with a business plan for the complainant and her family in August 2011. [6.6] In January 2012, Immigration New Zealand approved the LTB Visa and wrote to the complainant, care of Ms Kim, requesting passports to complete the process for issuing visas. Ms Kim emailed the complainant stating that Immigration New Zealand could not issue the visas until she paid the balance of Ms Kim’s fees. She told the complain...

3. Jackman v CAC 10010 & Cussen & Hale [2011] NZREADT 29 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...Unsatisfactory conduct which attracts professional discipline, even at the lower end of the scale, must be conduct which departs from acceptable professional standards. That departure must be significant enough to attract sanction for the purposes of protecting the public. A finding of ‘unsatisfactory conduct’ is not required in every case, even where error is shown. The question is not whether error was made, but whether the conduct in question was an acceptable discharge of prof...

4. Taueki v The Trustees of Horowhenua 11 Māori Reservation (2011) 263 Aotea MB 210 (263 AOT 210) [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...matters relating to control of the land and responsibilities of the trustees, they fall outside the current application and should be dealt with separately. The Law [11] It is trite law that an interlocutory injunction is a discretionary remedy. It protects a plaintiff from injury to legal or equitable rights resulting from delay between the filing of a claim and trial for which damages are not an adequate remedy: American Cynamid Co v Ethicon Limited. 4 Two essential questions a...

5. CAC 402 v Dunham [2016] NZREADT 49 [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...occupations is not to punish the practitioner for misbehaviour, although it may have that effect, but to ensure appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned. [16] The principal purpose of the Act is to “promote and protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate and to promote public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work.”9 The Act achieves these purposes by:10 (a) Regulating agents,...

6. Complaints Assessments Committee 403 v Misa NZREADT 11 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...73(b) of the Act. In the light of this finding, the Committee is given leave to withdraw the charge of misconduct under s 73(c)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Penalty Sentencing principles [14] The principal purpose of the Act is to “promote and protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate and to promote public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work.”1 The Act achieves these purposes by regulating agents, branch manage...

7. Complaints Assessments Committee (CAC 409) v Wong NZREADT 16 [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...the medium to upper range of unsatisfactory conduct. [18] He submitted that an appropriate penalty would be to impose a fine of $3,000. He submitted that this level of fine is necessary to ensure the maintenance of industry standards, and protection of the public, while recognising that Mr Wong’s shortcomings did not extend to a wide number of transactions. Mr Mortimer further submitted that such a level of fine reflects the Committee’s view that if Mr Wong were still...

8. BU v DG LCRO 276 / 2011 (6 November 2013) - Penalty Decision [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...application was the subject of a decision issued from this office dated 17 September 2013 (the substantive decision) which made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against Mr DG in respect of breaches of Rules 2.3, 2.7 and 2.10 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules.1 Mr DG was found to have used the complaints process for an improper purpose. This decision deals with penalty and costs now that both parties have filed submissions. [2] The details surrounding the complaint are set ou...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v Shand [2021] NZLCDT 9 (31 March 2021) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...appears to us to be a significant volume of defaults. Although only one other of his disciplinary cases concerned delay in providing a file, several others disclose lack of attention to matters that are important in providing proper professional care to his clients. These include, for example, failure to follow instructions, failure to competently supervise and manage junior staff, failure to provide client care information. We infer that he is more engaged in the forward momentu...

10. LCRO 40/2021 PT v UT and RL t/a Law Firm A (28 April 2022) [pdf, 266 KB]

    ...authorised in this rule. [47] The rule is unequivocal to laypersons and lawyers alike and there can be no uncertainty about its meaning. [48] The principle behind the rule is equally clear:4 The rule seeks to prevent a lawyer from circumventing the protection afforded by the other party’s lawyer and obtaining an unfair advantage. A lawyer may be retained to ensure no concessions or admissions are made and no information is disclosed, except on good grounds. If a client is contact...