Right to be heard in person when Standards Committee considering a complaint
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:
1327 items matching your search terms
Right to be heard in person when Standards Committee considering a complaint
Failure to file appeal / refusal to act / further unsatisfactory conduct
Conflict of interest / publication of name / natural justice
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act the decision of the Standards Committee is Confirmed.
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is reversed.
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act 2006 I confirm the decision of the Standards Committee.
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act. The decision of the Wellington Standards Committee 2 is confirmed
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act 2006 and the decision of the Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 is confirmed
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act 2006 and the decision of the Wellington Standards Committee 1 is confirmed
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act. The decision of the Auckland Standards Committee is confirmed
Pursuant to section 211(1)(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act 2006 I confirm the decision of the Standards Committee.
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act 2006 and the decision of the Hawkes bay Standards Committee is confirmed
Date of decision: 29 June 2009
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is Confirmed.
Extensive delays in replying to correspondence unsatisfactory conduct / re-hearing where appropriate / practitioner should be familiar with Act / LCRO may consider the complaint de novo
Extensive delays in replying to correspondence unsatisfactory conduct / re-hearing where appropriate / practitioner should be familiar with Act / LCRO may consider the complaint de novo
Extensive delays in replying to correspondence unsatisfactory conduct / re-hearing where appropriate / practitioner should be familiar with Act / LCRO may consider the complaint de novo
Reasons for decision to be given / were disparaging comments unprofessional
Costs ordered against applicant / Confirmed decision of the Standards Committee to decline jurisdiction
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act 2006 and the decision of the Southland Standards Committee is confirmed
Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act, the decision of the Auckland Standards Committee is reversed
The application for review is upheld pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act
When time begins to run for making application for review / no grounds exist for extending time
The Application for reveiw is Declined, Pursuant to section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyance’s Act 2006 and the decision of the Auckland’s Standards Committee 1 is confirmed
The Application for review is upheld, Pursuant to s 209(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act