You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.
Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.
Helpful search tips:
1328 items matching your search terms
Request recusal of LCRO / applicant lacked sufficient personal connection / Saxmere Co Ltd v New Zealand Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd [2007] NZCA 334, [2010] 1 NZLR 35 / Muir v Inland Revenue Department [2009] NZSC 72, [2007] 3 NZLR 495 / bias / HELD / no basis for recusal / recusal denied
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint over substance of YB’s complaint / no basis for complaint to have been made / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 10 / treating other lawyers with courtesy and respect / HELD / proper basis to make complaints / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / complaint over use of complaints process / urgency in obtaining files / HELD / reasonable to complain under the circumstances / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Request recusal of LCRO / applicant lacked sufficient personal connection / Saxmere Co Ltd v New Zealand Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd [2007] NZCA 334, [2010] 1 NZLR 35 / Muir v Inland Revenue Department [2009] NZSC 72, [2007] 3 NZLR 495 / bias / HELD / no basis for recusal / recusal denied
Tenor of Standards Committee determination subjective, personal and pejorative, inconsistent with terminology of the LCA. Determination reversed. Finding of unsatisfactory conduct not challenged by applicant, and reinstated (for different reasons) on review. Standards Committee ordered lawyer to pay costs of $5,000. Costs not part of penalty, and should reflect costs and expenses of and incidental to inquiry or investigation.LCRO directed Standards Committee to give lawyer the opportunity to make submissions on costs prior to making an order.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision is modified to record that there has been unsatisfactory conduct on Mr OX’s part pursuant to s 12(b).
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision is: (a) Modified to record a determination pursuant to s 152(2)(b)(i) and 12(c) that there has been unsatisfactory conduct on the part of Mr RV by his contravention of rule 8; and (b) Otherwise confirmed. Pursuant to s 210 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 Mr RV is ordered to pay costs of $1,200.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint over members of Standards Committee / Lydd v Mayport LCRO 164/2009 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 194(1) / role of LCRO on review / HELD / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Lawyer sent a letter marked "without prejudice save as to costs" to arbitrator prior to arbitrator reaching decision on substantive matters. Complaint by opposing lawyer that this constituted a breach of r 13.9 of the CCCR. Standards Committee considered whether lawyer had breached privilege and found breach of r13.9. LCRO advised parties of his preliminary view that r13.9 related only to the issue of privilege in the context of discovery and called for submissions / comments. Respondent (complainant lawyer_ responded that r13.9 was irrelevant and that the issue fell to be determined in accordance with general professional obligations (rules not exhaustive) and rule 2 (requirement to uphold the rule of law). Applicant's counsel agreed with LCRO preliminary review, observing that disputes over the status of without prejudice documents were commonplace and were to be resolved by the judge or arbitrator. He considered it would be 'intolerable' for litigators to be exposed to adverse di…
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Ms GN has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] dated 15 December 2014. The Committee found that Mr HJ’s failure to provide information to Ms GN contravened rule 3.5 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. The Committee concluded the fees charged for services provided to Ms GN were fair and reasonable pursuant to rules 9 and 9.1, and decided that further action on the other issues Ms GN raised in her complaint was not necessary or appropriate. A finding of unsatisfactory conduct was recorded against Mr HJ, and he was fined $500.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Pursuant to s 210 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 Ms WS is ordered to pay costs on review of $1,200 within 28 days of the date of this decision.
Pursuant to s 210 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 Ms WS is ordered to pay costs on review of $1,200 within 28 days of the date of this decision.
Ms DS has applied for a review of the Standards Committee decision in relation to her complaint against Mr TL. Her complaint related to Mr TL’s conduct when he acted for a foreign investor who purchased land in Region without the required Overseas Investment Office (OIO) consent.
Breaches of rules 2.3, 3, 7.1 and failing to fulfill instructions. Lawyer failed to lodge caveat - s156(1)(d) LCA - compensation for loss of opportunity to be aware of sale of property.
Own motion investigation by NZLS Inspectorate resulted in finding of unsatisfactory conduct for breach of rule 17(1) against all partners, a $500 fine each, and each partner to pay $200 by way of costs. The trust account had become overdrawn on 3 occasions, there were 235 dormant balances dating back to 2002, and the partnership acknowledged that there had been a failing to account regularly to clients in accordance with requirements of reg12(7) of the Trust Account regulations. The Committee also referred to breaches of s337 of the LCA. The LCRO noted that the consumer protection principles of the LCA meant that compliance with the regulations and the Act relating to management of client funds should be stringently enforced. There was therefore little room to rank breaches on a spectrum as the Committee had, by referring to some breaches as being at the lower end of the spectrum resulting in no further action being taken , with others at the higher end. The Committee viewed the ov…
The decision that the lawyers’ conduct was unsatisfactory is confirmed. That determination is made pursuant to s 12(c) of the Act. There is no reason to impose different orders pursuant to s 156 of the Act. The apologies should be delivered and the costs paid promptly if those matters have not already been attended to.
The OA in bankruptcy complained that IL had provided incompetent advice to a bankrupt concerning his ability to act as an executor of his mother's estate, and advice relating to the bankrupt's ability to renounce his interest as a beneficiary in the Estate. The OA argued that this advice resulted in unnecessary costs to the Estate, thereby reducing the amount to be paid to the OA in respect of the bankrupt's share in the Estate. The Standards Committee declined to take any action in respects of the OA's complaints primarily because the majority of the conduct complained about took place after IL had been struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors. The Standards Committee determined it therefore had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints, as IL was not a "lawyer" as that term is defined in the LCA - (the definition of a lawyer in the LCA is a person who holds a current practising certificate, which IL did not.) The LCRO considered that the Standards Committee reasoning was irr…
Lawyer acted for company on instructions from sole director on the sale of a property owned by the company to a company controlled by the director's brother in law. Complainant was a shareholder in the vendor company and argued that the lawyer should have told him about the proposed sale and declined to act. Lawyer was aware of a major falling out between the complainant and the director. LCRO confirmed the decision of the Standards Committee that the lawyer's duty was to his client and any duty he owed to the complainant as a former client, was covered by rule 8.7 CCCR. LCRO acknowledged that faced with this set of circumstances, some lawyers may have felt uncomfortable in accepting instructions to act, "but a sense of discomfort does not easily present a reason…to decline to act and betray " the client's confidence. LCRO also took the view that any challenge to the director's instructions that the transaction was not a major transaction in terms of the Companies Act should be made t…