Search Results

1. GZ v Lu [2019] NZIACDT 15 (15 March 2019) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...the complainant and by assisting her to respond to Immigration New Zealand’s letter. These mistakes were isolated and not part of a wider provision of immigration advice to the complainant or other clients. The Headsun staff had now reflected carefully on what had happened. [30] Counsel stated that Mr Lu now acknowledged that on one occasion he did check and make minor grammatical suggestions to the contents of the complainant’s 7 proposed letter in response to Immigratio...

2. Mitchell v Corrections [2023] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...provides health or disability services to prisoners, which are a limited class of persons. Corrections is specifically required under the Corrections Act 2004 to have a health centre manager and Medical Officer and to ensure that prisoners have health care that is reasonably equivalent to the standard of health care available to the public. [18] Ms Mitchell submits that Corrections is not a health agency as it cannot issue NHI numbers and [redacted] are contractors, so not part of a he...

3. [2023] NZEmpC 145 Robertson v IDEA Services Ltd [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...Act 2000, s 103A(4). 3 Section 103A(5). needs because of his intellectual disability. He suffers from a post-traumatic stress disorder, and has difficulty communicating and expressing himself. He has a legacy of prior abuse while in care. He also has a degenerative condition affecting his sight by severely limiting it. [15] Client A has the benefit of Government funding that recognises his complex needs and behaviour and that he requires a high level of daily support, e...

4. Romford v Marlborough LCRO 123 / 2009 (15 December 2009) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...and “say it on the stand”. This amounts to an allegation that Mr Marlborough counselled Mr Romford to commit perjury. This would of itself be a criminal offence. It would also be a serious breach of r 13.10 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care which state “A lawyer must not adduce evidence knowing it to be false”. [23] Mr Romford says he took notes of the story Mr Marlborough told him on 23 September 2008. That story involved a dog running on the road in front of him and...

5. LCRO 195/2018 KW v LQ (26 June 2020) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...even if we have to take up a loan secured by our property; we will do whatever is needed”. [13] LQ then sent a further email to YT:3 Dear YT, please see attached our services terms and conditions (retainer). Please look through this document carefully. This is not an agreement. These are the conditions under which we provide services to our clients and we must ensure under the Country A legislation that you are familiar with them before we commence our services. … [14] When...

6. LCRO 323/2013 AZ v BY (22 June 2017) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...course of this complaint.26 The effect of delaying Court proceedings added significant amounts to the fee that Mr BY charged Mrs AZ for legal advice.27 Review [27] All material provided to the Standards Committee and to this Office has been carefully reviewed and if any of Mr AZ’s submissions are not specifically addressed in this decision it does not mean they have not been considered. [28] The review progressed by way of an applicant only hearing in Auckland on 12 June 2017 a...

7. LCRO 272/2015 PA v NT, RO and DS (31 August 2018) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...“(ii) of an incorporated [law] firm, or former incorporated [law] firm; or (iii) of … an employee or former employee [who is not a lawyer] of a [lawyer] or an incorporated [law] firm”. 13 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, Preface, Notes about the rules, Schedule. 12 (3) Mrs FH’s instructions [57] The Trustee Act confers on trustees, including executors or administrators, the power to sell any property vested in the trustees.14...

8. LCRO 59/2016 and 61/2016 DE and QV v Standards Committee (27 September 2018) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...of various defaults that had occurred, noting in particular the defaults that had occurred in a loan to Mr KP. In addition to the breaches of the Rules referred to, the Committee was satisfied that the practitioners had breached their duty of care to the contributors. [5] The Committee determined that the lawyers’ conduct constituted unsatisfactory conduct in terms of ss 12(a) and (c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) and having made this finding, the Committee...

9. BD v EG LCRO 374/2013 & 376/2013 (30 November 2015) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...in which the Committee found that Mr EG’s conduct had been unsatisfactory pursuant to s 12(c) of The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) by his contravention of rule 5.4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the rules). The Committee otherwise dismissed Mr BD’s complaints about Mr EG’s conduct. [2] Mr EG acted for Mr BD’s former wife after she and Mr BD had settled some of the disputes between them, including relationship...

10. LCDT Annual Report 2023 [pdf, 471 KB]

    ...Disciplinary Tribunal”. The purposes of the Act are set out in s 3 as follows: “3 Purposes (1) The purposes of this Act are— (a) to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services and conveyancing services: (b) to protect the consumers of legal services and conveyancing services: (c) to recognise the status of the legal profession and to establish the new profession of conveyancing practitioner. (2) To achieve those purposes, this Act, among other...