Search Results

1. S v J LCRO 5 / 2008 (13 February 2009) [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...That advice may have been provided forcefully. It may also be the case that Client S’s son, being in custody, felt pressured to accept the proposal, as it appeared the only way to get out of custody more or less immediately. [33] I have read carefully Client S’s son’s account of this series of events which he wrote in support of the Law Society complaint and is dated 10 October 2008. I place considerable weight on it. While he maintains his innocence in that letter and indica...

2. LCRO 130/2016 RB v ZB (28 June 2017) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...Concerning the disparaging remarks issue the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed. Orders [1] In giving consideration as to whether it is appropriate to order a penalty, it is to be noted that the function of the disciplinary process is protective, not punitive.40 In these particular circumstances, other than the public interest in lawyers maintaining professional standards and ensuring compliance with the rules, no broader issues of consumer protection or public welfa...

3. LCRO 207/2015 CA v BE (21 August 2018) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...context of the breakdown of the employment relationship between Mrs CA and Mr BE’s client; 4 (d) Mr BE’s language and assertions were undoubtedly a reflection of the state of affairs between the parties; (e) Ms C’s instructions were protected by legal privilege and the Committee cannot go behind that to assess them; and (f) no other ancillary issues raised by Mrs CA raised professional conduct issues. Application for review [14] Mrs CA filed an application for review...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 138 Pilgrim v Attorney-General [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...application.14 Again, it is necessary to understand the facts of each case to understand the extent to which they assist in deciding the matters raised in the context of these proceedings. The first is CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which concerned whether the Immigration Assessment Authority’s decision was invalid due to apprehended bias. The information provided to the Authority included a large amount of material which was irrelevant and prejudicial,...

5. Erwood v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 92 [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...centre 5 of the occlusal surface of tooth 47. I enquired if he could feel it as cold – and, there being no response, checked for a difference on the adjacent tooth, the 46. I am aware of the importance to avoid respiratory issues and took care with the quantity and direction of application. Mr Erwood certainly did not demonstrate any adverse symptoms when he was present at my surgery and after the spray had been administered. There was no clear response on the teeth to th...

6. Otago Standards Committee v Davidson [2012] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...but she took no steps to correct the matter. 3 Affidavit of David James More dated 20 th August 2012, Exhibit “A” at page 18 of the Standards Committee Bundle. 8 [30] The need to protect the public and the need to maintain public confidence in the legal profession are key elements in the professional disciplinary regime in which we operate. These elements were spelt out in Bolton v Law Society4 and they have subseq...

7. McNicholl v CAC416 & O'Loughlin [2019] NZREADT 32 - Penalty (2 August 2019) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012, and fell short of the standard that a reasonable member of the public is entitled to expect from a reasonably competent licensee.4 Sentencing principles [11] 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.”5 The Act achieves these purposes by regulating agents, branch man...

8. Proactive release - COVID 19 Response Courts Safety Legislation Bill [pdf, 4.4 MB]

   ...6.10 provide a verdict would not be affected because a person was deferred or excused from jury service, or served on a jury, because of steps taken pursuant to the new powers in paragraphs 6.1 – 6.8; Clarify the relationship between open justice protections and health and safety measures through the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 7 agreed to clarify that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 relating to public and media access to criminal proceedings do not affect the ability...

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Castles [2013] NZLCDT 53 [pdf, 277 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2013] NZLCDT 53 LCDT 037/12 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and the Law Practitioners Act 1982 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE No. 3 AND EION MALCOLM JAMES CASTLES of Auckland, Lawyer CHAIR Judge D F Clarkson MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Mr W Chapman Ms C Rowe Ms M Scholtens QC Mr P Shaw HEARING at AUCKLAND DATES 18-19 July, 19-21

10. LCRO 47/2024 OZ v HD (22 November 2024) [pdf, 277 KB]

    ...respondent submitted a statement about the matter supported by a copy of a file note made by the supervising accountant the day after the inspection took place recording her experience of the document inspection process. [44] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that necessit...