Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 2021 archive

    On this page: Legal aid invoices submitted with a missing date range Opportunity to provide feedback on the Ministry's Care of Children resources Notification of Unavailability Implementing the COVID-19 Protection Framework in the courts and tribunals Survey for PDLA lawyers to provide feedback on nationwide holiday period roster COVID-19 Protection Framework traffic light system - Update 24/01/2022 Phone scam targeting lawyers Wellington Legal Aid office closed Monday 24 January 2022 COV...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. Lawyers & service providers >
   3. Legal aid lawyers >
   4. Whats New for lawyers providing Legal Aid

5. [2017] NZEnvC 090 Pierau v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...Regional Council C81/2007; Calder Stewart Industrtes Limited v Christchurch City Council C1712006. 3 Such as Canterbury Regional Council v Christchurch City Council (2001) 7 ELRNZ 113; Campbell v Napier City Council W6712005; Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc v Whakatane District Council [2012] NZEnvC 38. 4 At paragraph [17]. 5 [2015] NZEnvC 218 at [24]. 7 assessment of the application. We add that we can see no basis upon which Parliament could have intended that...

6. [2017] NZEnvC 090 Pierau v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...Regional Council C81/2007; Calder Stewart Industrtes Limited v Christchurch City Council C1712006. 3 Such as Canterbury Regional Council v Christchurch City Council (2001) 7 ELRNZ 113; Campbell v Napier City Council W6712005; Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc v Whakatane District Council [2012] NZEnvC 38. 4 At paragraph [17]. 5 [2015] NZEnvC 218 at [24]. 7 assessment of the application. We add that we can see no basis upon which Parliament could have intended that...

7. Director of Proceedings v Health New Zealand [2024] NZHRRT 37 [pdf, 710 KB]

   ...defendant has breached the Health and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights) Regulations 1996 (“the Code”) in respect of Right 4(1) by failing to provide services to the aggrieved person with reasonable care and skill. [3] In the consent memorandum the parties also seek a final order under s 107(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1993 prohibiting the publication of the name and identifying details of the aggrieved person in this matter (Infan...

8. Juneja v Kumar [2016] NZIACDT 13 (18 March 2016) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...of his professional offending. [28] Mr Moses correctly submitted that the Tribunal must not speculate and go beyond the evidence before it. The parties may be aware of matters they do not, and should not, disclose to the Tribunal. The Registrar protects the public interest in that regard. [29] Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts Mr Kumar’s evidence that in the circumstances in which he provided his professional services he did so with competence and care, except for a minor error of ju...

9. [2020] NZREADT 35 - SureCapital (13 August 2020) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...the requirement for any penalty to have a general and individual deterrent effect is especially important in this case. She submitted that even if the Tribunal were to consider that SureCapital has learned from this experience, and will be more careful in the future, any penalty must mark the conduct in a way that sends a message to the real estate industry. [20] Ms Lim submitted that the fine should be set at a level that takes into account that the maximum available fine for corp...

10. Auckland Standards Committees 2 and 3 v Mason [2019] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 89 KB]

    ...practising certificate, it having been declined on his last application, by the New Zealand Law Society. He has not chosen to contest that and indicates he will not seek to practise law again. This has implications in relation to the need for public protection. [40] Mr Mason’s circumstances are quite impecunious. He is an undischarged bankrupt earning relatively low wages working as a caregiver for intellectually disabled people. He also has had some employment assisting an im...