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. 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...

4. 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...

5. LCRO 83/2025 NA v CB and MG (15 September 2025) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...professional judgement; (b) any issue of costs or compensation had been resolved by the settlement agreement; (c) the firm did not act for the applicant or owe him any form of legal duty; (d) the firm rejected the applicant’s allegations of lack of care, breach of professional standards, threats and abusing its position; (e) the firm had not accused the applicant of fraud or traduced his character; (f) the claims of the firm’s clients were properly brought and reasonably arg...

6. 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...

7. [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...

8. [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...

9. 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...

10. [2021] NZIACDT 23 - CL v Khetarpal (24 September 2021) [pdf, 228 KB]

    ...contempt for the disciplinary process. She has not demonstrated remorse. There is no evidence she has learned any lesson from all these complaints against her. Ms Khetarpal is unfit to be a member of the profession. Vulnerable immigrants must be protected from her. [43] This brings the Tribunal to consideration of the sanctions. Caution or censure [44] Ms Khetarpal is hereby censured. The Tribunal marks its serious disapproval of her conduct. Training [45] The Regis...