Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Sheat [2023] NZLCDT 50 (7 November 2023) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...“reckless” in the s 7(1)(a)(ii)2 definition of misconduct. Mr Mortimer-Wang submitted that Mr Sheat’s admission of a “wilful” breach necessarily implied calculated dishonesty. 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 2 LCA. 3 [5] Elements of both calculation (or miscalculation) and dishonesty feature in Mr Sheat’s misconduct but we do not find him guilty to the level imported by the harsh glare of the term “calculated...

2. LR v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for overseas rehabilitation costs) [2023] NZACC 29 [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...classified as 98%. His twin died in utero. [3] On 11 October 2017, a treatment injury claim was filed on the appellant’s behalf. The claim was for “brain injury, skin injury, kidney injury” and related to an alleged delay in obstetric care. The claim was lodged on the basis that there had been a failure to recognise and treat twin to twin transfusion syndrome (“TTTS”) and arrange an earlier delivery. [4] On 6 July 2018, the claim was investigated. It was confirmed th...

3. PU v RW LCRO 15/2013 (4 September 2014) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...issues: i) Had Mr PU failed to treat Mr RW with respect? ii) Had Mr PU misled Mr RW in respect to the fee to be charged? iii) Had Mr PU failed to provide Mr RW with a letter of engagement as required by Rule 3.4 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules? [11] In a decision delivered on 3 December 2012, the Standards Committee determined that there had been unsatisfactory conduct by Mr PU and ordered that he be censured and pay costs to the New Zealand Law Society, and compensat...

4. LCRO 140/2016 and 153/2016 BF v ZL (21 February 2019) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...to be other than disgraceful and dishonourable by lawyers of good standing. [9] Mr BF continues by referring to what he considers to be breaches by Mr ZL of rr 2, 2.4, 6 and 6.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (CCCR). [10] Mr BF considers Mr ZL has breached rr 2 and 2.4 by “configur[ing] the affairs of CAB such that [it] has been dispossessed of $960,000”. [11] Mr BF considers Mr ZL has breached rr 6 and 6.1 in the following way...

5. Family Court Rewrite Submission - ADL [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...issues. This includes client casework, legal education and law reform work. We have experience in advising and assisting Deaf and Disabled People who are the focus of our submission and who often the current law and associated processes fails to protect and provide access to justice. During the first round of consultation, ADL met with the Independent Panel, provided a written submission, and promoted the Family Justice System submission process through our national disability commu...

6. LCRO 39/2022 RD v QL and ZH (29 November 2023) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...to another lawyer in the firm. Ms RD was soon afterwards advised that she needed to take independent advice. [33] The Committee determined that neither Ms QL or Mr ZH had breached the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) relating to conflicts of interest. Fees [34] The Committee noted that the fee for the renewal of the lease was withdrawn as it had been prepared on the instructions of the landlord. [35] At paragraph 4.3 o...

7. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Austin [2016] NZLCDT 33 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...features in relation to this conduct. Mitigating Features [14] There are a number of mitigating features to be taken account of by the Tribunal: 5 1. Lack of disciplinary history [15] This practitioner has had a very long (35 years) career and has had no previous disciplinary history. 2. References [16] The practitioner has provided to us a number of glowing references. While that in itself is not particularly unusual in cases of this kind, we record that the seniori...

8. Jonas v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 412) and Hartnett [2019] NZREADT 002 [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...consider that the Committee was in error in the way that it decided the penalty question in this case. [22] As part of its decision, the Committee stated that the principles that it was concerned with were the following:13 [a] promoting and protecting the interests of consumers and the public generally; [b] maintaining professional standards; [c] punishing offences; and [d] rehabilitating the professional; [23] The appellant did not contend that any of these principles were i...

9. EO and EP v VO LCRO 240 / 2010 (3 August 2011) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...above property was not accepted by your client which means that your client will now proceed to auction. Since then our elderly client’s family has been involved and our client now realises she does not have the funding for the future. You may care to telephone the writer in this regard.” [13] The Practitioner‟s reply of the same day: 4 “We refer to your most recent fax. Your client’s offer remains open until 4.00 pm on Monday and as advised we will be obtainin...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hintze [2017] NZLCDT 13 [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...charges of misconduct within the meaning of s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (Act) in that he wilfully or recklessly contravened the provisions of the Act and/or the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (Rules). [2] Charges 6 and 7 are laid in the alternative and the applicant did not pursue them. [3] The details of Charges 1 to 5 are attached as Appendix 1. [4] The first four charges relate to complaints by four former c...