Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
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
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 determination that Mr DL’s conduct was unsatisfactory is reversed. The decision is otherwise confirmed.
Complaint / matter reconsidered by LCRO / Chapman v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2015] NZHC 1500 / A v Z LCRO 40/2009 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 3.4 / rule 10 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 110 / section 113 / lack of professionalism / fee exceeding quote / deduction of fees / HELD / no action regarding lack of professionalism / no issue regarding quote / entitled to deduct fees / 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 in all respects.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the determination of the Standards Committee to take no further action on the complaints, is reversed.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision of the Standards Committee is reversed. Pursuant to ss 211(1)(b) and 138(2) further action on the complaint is unnecessary.
Application for review is not upheld. Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
No jurisdiction to consider application for review because the formalities prescribed by s 198 of the Act were not complied with.
The application for review is declined on the basis that there is no jurisdiction to consider it.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
Pursuant to Section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision of the Standards Committee is reversed
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
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed as modified
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
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed.
Pursuant to Section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision of the Standards Committee is reversed
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
Pursuant to Section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision of the Standards Committee is reversed
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is / A- Confirmed / B- Reversed
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
SC decision no further action – BB acted for CC in the sale of her property – because no CCC was issued for an accessory building, settlement was delayed and CC was obliged to accept a $100,000 reduction of price – complaint BB failed to carry out instructions and protect interests – review poor legal representation – LCRO referred to Q v LCRO – no discretion to introduce a party to a complaint at the review stage and continue with review – focus of complaint against law firm must be quite different from focus of complaint against BB – LCS did not have jurisdiction – BB was a conveyancing practitioner at the time – “practitioner” defined in s 2 and “appropriate complaints service” identified in s 135 – complaint about BB should have been referred to Conveyancers Complaints Service – SC decision reversed – matter returned to SC as complaint against BB’s firm
Finding of unsatisfactory conduct against lawyer by Standards Committee. Lawyer engaged to conduct litigation for complainant. Lawyer ordered to pay $3,000 to complainant as compensation for stress and anxiety. Applicant sought greater sum by way of compensation, alleging negligence by the lawyer. Discussion by LCRO of relationship between unsatisfactory conduct as defined in s12(a) LCA and negligence - paras [26] - [39].
Pursuant to Section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision of the Standards Committee is reversed