Decision (12 June 2017) PLUS a suplementary order dated 29 June 2017
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:
1326 items matching your search terms
Decision (12 June 2017) PLUS a suplementary order dated 29 June 2017
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / property purchase / lawyers exchanged undertakings / applicant did not honour undertaking to release funds on the same day / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 10.3 / Auckland Standards Committee 3 of the New Zealand Law Society v W [2011] 3 NZLR 117 (HC) / Auckland Standards Committee v Stirling [2010] NZLCDT 4 / FY v UM LCRO 239/2010 (26 October 2011) / HELD / lawyers must honour all undertakings / breach of rule 10.3 / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / relationship property dispute / complaint lawyer of undue delay in providing files / file notes had been removed or destroyed / lawyer acted inappropriately / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 4.4.1 / rule 3.4 / rule 12 / Wilson v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 2288 / uplifting files / HELD / delay in uplifting files unsatisfactory conduct / no evidence to support allegation material was removed from file / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / relationship property dispute / complaint that nothing had been achieved / lawyer had not acted in clients best interests / excessive fees / conflict of interest / Lawyers and Conveyancers (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.1 / HELD / no conflict of interest / lawyer progressed matters as was practicable / no unreasonable delays / costs ordered against lay applicant / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute between business partners / lawyer acted for both parties / complaint of conflict of interest / failure to follow instructions / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6 / rule 6.1 / rule 7 / rule 8 / rule 8.7 / Taylor v Schofield Peterson [1999] 3 NZLR 434 (HC) / Sandy v Khan LCRO 181/2009 (9 December 2009) / HELD / lawyer do not insist each party get independent legal advice / no informed consent / breach of rule 6 and 6.1 / unsatisfactory conduct / not enough evidence to determine instructions were not followed / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / judicial review proceeding / lawyer appeared for respondents / applicant not client of lawyer / complaint about lawyers conduct of proceedings / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committee) Regulations 2008, regulation 9 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 12 / third party duties / administration of justice / Standards Committee procedure / HELD / limited duties owed to third parties / instructions to lawyer protected by privilege / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / criminal appeal / lawyers acted for the Crown / allegations of misfeasance of public office / HELD / questions of torts are matters for the courts / review totally without merit / costs ordered against lay applicant / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Decision (27 June 2017)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / complainant lawyer failed to answer legal question / HELD / lawyer answer question and followed instructions / advice met standards of competence and diligence / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / relationship property dispute / caveat registered over house to pay lawyers fees / client died / complainant beneficiary under will / complaint lawyer failed to provide terms of engagement / did not advise client to take independent advice / failure to follow instructions / fees not fair and reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 5.4 / rule 9 / rule 13.3 / rule 13.4 / alternatives to litigation / HELD / lawyer provided competent service / fees fair and reasonable / other remedies available to the complainant / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
Review conducted by duly appointed delegate. Applicant demanded hearing in person. While an applicant may decline to consent to the review being completed on the papers (s206(2) LCA) the LCRO (and delegates) may direct that the hearing take place by telephone. S 206(5) provides that the LCRO may regulate his or her procedure as he or she thinks fit and the dictates of natural justice do not require hearings to be in person.The LCRO noted that many court and quasi judicial hearings are conducted by telephone and the LCRO office must ensure resources are used effectively. Applicant also demanded that he be able to have witnesses give evidence at the review hearing. LCRO reviews will generally not accept information that was not before the Standards Committee (Guideline 17 for parties to review). Review hearings are not the same as court hearings where witnesses are called and cross examined. It is rare for a witness to be allowed to attend and give evidence at a review hearing. The evid…
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / lawyer acted as arbitrator / award issued five years after hearing / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 6 / section 65 / LCRO 191/2015 / whether Committee has jurisdiction / whether findings in the Committee amount to double jeopardy / HELD / arbitration not excluded from the Act / Committee has jurisdiction / penalty modified / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a) Decision (12 June 2017) PLUS a supplementary order dated 29 June 2017
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / purchase of healthcare facility / lawyer advised client to cancel contract / complaint lawyer had a conflict of interests / deducted fees from trust account / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 110(1)(b) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008, regulation 9 / regulation 9.3 / regulation 10 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 5.3 / Heslop v Cousins [2007] 3 NZLR 679 (HC) / AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (6 May 2016) / duty to give objective advice / competence / HELD / lawyer gave objective advice / conflict of interest complaint speculative / lawyer entitled to deduct fees / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Decision dated 02/06/17
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / statutory demand / use legal process for improper purpose / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Conveyancing Practitioners: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.3 / HELD / lawyer acted correctly / complainant not client of lawyer / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / relationship property dispute / conflict of interest / independent advice / fees complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Conveyancing Practitioners: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.1 / HELD / lawyer acted correctly / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Lawyer’s trust advanced funds through nominee company to client on two occasions — prior to and after 1 August 2008. Standards Committee determined to take no further action in respect of the advance prior to 1 August 2008, but found unsatisfactory conduct in respect of the advance after 1 August 2008 on the basis that the lawyer had not ensured the borrower took independent advice. LCRO confirmed the Standards Committee decision, specifically noting the prohibition in Rule 5.4.3 against a lawyer entering into a financial arrangement with a client if there is a possibility of the relationship of trust and confidence being compromised. LCRO also found the advance prior to 1 August 2008 constituted unsatisfactory conduct by way of conduct unbecoming. Standards Committee penalties confirmed, with additional penalty of censure.
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / failure to respond / delay in transferring files / fee not fair or reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Conveyancing Practitioners: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3.2 / rule 4.4.1 / rule 9 / HELD / lawyer acted in a timely manner / not entitled to charge fees after retainer terminated / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / employed suspended lawyer / misled Committee / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 7(2)(b) / provision of regulated services / HELD / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / fee dispute / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Conveyancing Practitioners: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.1 / costs assessor / natural justice / HELD / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / fee dispute / estimate / complaint lawyer incompetent / timeliness / HELD / no evidence to support allegation / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / property dispute / agreement to purchase / complaint lawyer incompetent / fees complaint / HELD / complex contract / lawyer not acting for complainants when purchasing property / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / property dispute / payment of money into trust account / lawyer sought advice from another practitioner / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 110 / New Zealand Law Society v B [2013] NZCA 156 / BI v CW LCRO 23/2012 / dispute over amounts to be paid / instructions conflicted with judgment / HELD / reasonable for lawyer to rely on advice / attempts to resolve dispute / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint about estate / fee dispute / respect and courtesy / timeliness / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Conveyancing Practitioners: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 9.1 / bias towards executor / HELD / instructions required from all executors / no evidence of bias / fees reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute between co-trustees / complainant not client of lawyer / information sought from lawyer / Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, section 227(1) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Conveyancing Practitioners: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 12 / third party duties / HELD / LCRO not proper forum for complaints / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)