Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 3 (21 January 2022) [pdf, 557 KB]
...Brill’s case is that because his clients were friends and/or neighbours they were “a particular group” and that “a precise group” was the “exact opposite of “the public”. [45] Mr Brill submits that the purpose of s 9 is “… to protect the public against persons holding themselves out as lawyers when not entitled to do so”. And that “the Practice Rules are to prevent non-lawyers from holding themselves out or acting as if they were lawyers, not to prevent law...