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:
- If you are looking for a specific decision with a forward slash in the title (eg, 123/2014), you will need to replace the forward slash with a space (eg, 123 2014), as the website cannot pick up on forward slashes (/) or any other characters.
- If you are doing a keyword search (eg. misconduct), please note that this search will only produce decisions where the keyword appears in the title or decision description. If you want to search the entire decision document for certain keywords, you will need to use full website search located in the top right hand corner of this page.
- If you want to search for a decision from a particular jurisdiction using the full website search, put both the jurisdiction name and the keyword in the search field (eg, LCRO misconduct).
-
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
-
A decision of a Committee to initiate an own motion inquiry is not a decision capable of review by the Legal Complaints Review Officer
-
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is modified