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
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / employment dispute / failure to follow instructions / witness statements / compliance order / conflict of interest / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Conveyancing Practitioners: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6.1 / rule 13.8.2 / serious allegations / in house lawyer / HELD / no evidence to support complaints / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Decision dated 28/04/17
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / criminal matter / saw victim and offender at same time / guilty plea / withdrawing complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 199 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 13.10.4 / Harold v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2012] NZHC 145, [2012] 2 NZLR 559 / role of LCRO / prosecution witness / HELD / Office obliged to continue with complaint / breach of rule 13.10.4 / unsatisfactory conduct / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Decision (21 April 2017)
Complaint / Committee unsatisfactory conduct / allegation of deceit / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 13.8.1 / Medcalf v Mardell (No 2) [2000] All ER (D) 1969 / Schmidt v Pepper Custodians [2012] NZCA 565 / reasonable grounds / HELD / reasonable grounds for pleading deceit / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Date of decision: 31 March 2017
Decision Dated (23 March 2017)
Complaint / Committee unsatisfactory conduct / conflict of interest / indemnity insurance / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 6.1 / rule 7 / Nicholson v Icepak Coolstores Ltd [1999] 3 NZLR 475 (HC) / Mercantile Mutual Insurance (NSW Workers Compensation) Ltd v Murray [2004] NSWCA 151. (2004) 13 ANZ Ins Cas 61-612 / client care letter / duty of confidence / HELD / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / lawyer’s trust account obligations / firm has no trust account / overpayment of fees / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 3 / rule 9.3 / rule 9.6 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 regulation 9 / regulation 10 / final invoice / fees in advance / delayed refund / issues not part of complaints / HELD / obliged to hold client monies in trust account / failed to advise on costs contribution / no final invoice / no finding on trust account issue / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / will incorrectly drafted / problems obtaining probate / complaint about legal executive / supervision inadequate / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 5.11 / conflict of interest / HELD / failure to recognise conflict of interest / employment issue / Office lacks jurisdiction / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / complainant seeks compensation / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 156 / HELD / compensation limited to $25,000 / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Decision (15 February 2017)
A Standards Committee determination was quashed by the High Court after the Committee acknowledged breaches of natural justice in that the Deputy Convener of the Committee participated in the decision while at the same time having made a complaint about the lawyer. Mr ZA’s complaint about the lawyer was that his conduct was disgraceful, dishonourable, or incompetent, such that the lawyer ought to have recused himself. He alleged the lawyer had brought the profession into disrepute. The Standards Committee determined to take no further action on the complaint on the grounds that the lawyer was not providing regulated services and his conduct was not in bad faith. Mr ZA applied for a review on the grounds that the Committee had erred in applying the test that a lawyer must be providing regulated services, whilst the test was that the conduct complained about must be conduct connected with the provision of regulated services. The LCRO did not disagree with that proposition, but did not ag…
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint about comments Committee made / fees complaint / function of Standards Committee / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 130 / HELD / parts removed from decision / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint lawyers caused embarrassment / serving papers / lack of independent witness / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2.3 / HELD / lawyer did not seek to cause embarrassment / other methods of serving papers attempted / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Decision (16 December 2016)
Consideration of Reg 39 Trust Account regulations. LCRO confirmed Standards Committee determination that an unsecured loan is not a “contributory security” for the purposes of reg 39(1) and the Nominee Company Rules are not therefore applicable.
Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / complaint about will / failure to inform beneficiary / inadequate supervision / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 11.3 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 regulation 12 / non-lawyer employee / whether lawyers providing regulated services / HELD / employee did not require close supervision / lawyers providing regulated services / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
A decision was issued in respect of this review on 18 August 2016 setting out the relevant facts and conclusions arising from Mr GK’s complaint. The review was determined on the basis that there had been unsatisfactory conduct on Mr ZR’s part pursuant to s 12 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act).
Mr KV has applied for a review of a decision by the [Place] Standards Committee [X], which decided to take no further action on Mr KV’s complaints about Mr LA.
Miss MB has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] to take no further action in respect of her complaint concerning the conduct of the respondent, Ms PF.
Mr JR has applied for a review of a decision by the National Standards Committee to take no further action in respect of his complaint concerning the conduct of Mr ST who, like Mr JR, is a lawyer practising in Auckland.
Decision (30 November 2016)
Decision (30 November 2016)
Mr VH, a member of the Board of trustees of LD Trust ([Text removed]), has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee in which the Committee decided that further action was not necessary or appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, which dealt with Mr CN’s conduct in relation to instructions he had received about trust governance issues.