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:
1384 items matching your search terms
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint over lawyer acting in disciplinary proceedings / complaint lawyer expressed personal opinion / complaint lawyer incompetent / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 / rule 13.5 / rule 13.5.1 / rule 13.5.4 / HELD / no substance to complaints / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint about statements in article / criticism of judiciary / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 138(1)(c) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2 / rule 2.8 / rule 10 / LP v CS LCRO 170/2011 obligation to report a lawyer / context of comments / vexatious complaint / HELD / comments part of public debate / no conduct issues / complaint vexatious / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint over money held in lawyer’s trust account / jurisdiction of LCRO / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 110 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 12 / courtesy to third party / HELD / money held requires joint instructions / Office has no jurisdiction / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)
Complaint/ Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint about statements in article / criticism of judiciary / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 section 138(1)(c) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 rule 2 / rule 2.8 / rule 10 / LP v CS LCRO 170/2011 obligation to report a lawyer / context of comments / vexatious complaint / HELD / comments part of public debate / no conduct issues / complaint vexatious / Committee’s decision confirmed / 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
Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / complaint over delay in uplifting files / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 / rule 4.4 / rule 4.4.1 rule 10 / rule 10.3 / treating other lawyers with courtesy and respect / urgency in obtaining files / communication with former client / HELD / no undue delay in providing files / proper to communicate with former client to confirm instructions / 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
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.