Skip to main content
New Zealand Law Society - 2022
Branches, sections and groups
About us
Contact us
Careers
Membership
Go to registry
Logout
Search button
Close search
Open menu
Close menu
Branches, sections and groups
About us
Go to registry
Logout
For the public
Back
For the public
Find a lawyer
Choosing and working with a lawyer
Legal fees and billing
Lawyers Complaints Service
Lawyers' Fidelity Fund
Common legal issues
Professional practice
Back
Professional practice
Rules and maintaining professional standards
Continuing Professional Development
Diversity and inclusion
Legal practice
Working overseas
Client care and complaints
Practising Well
Practice briefings
Law library
Will notices
Legal jobs
Get involved
Courts Roundup
Starting as a lawyer
Lawyers Complaints Service
Back
Lawyers Complaints Service
Before making a complaint
How the complaints process works
How to make a complaint
Possible complaint outcomes
What we do and don't do
Decisions
Strike offs and do not employ orders
News
Back
News
Publications
Newsroom
Law Society statements
Events
Page location
Home
Lawyers Complaints Service
Decisions
Standards Committee decisions
2022
2022
Non-compliance with a Standards Committee order
A complaint was made against a lawyer who, as executor of an estate, failed to transfer shares to three beneficiaries in accordance with the terms of the will. The complainant made a further complaint as the lawyer failed to comply with the order. The lawyer did not initially engage with the…
Lawyer appointed as attorney witnessed signature of EPOA document
A lawyer who witnessed the signing of an enduring power of attorney (EPOA), despite the fact that the EPOA appointed him as joint attorney, has been disciplined by a Standards Committee, and ordered to pay a fine of $7,500.
Acting against a former client
A couple (Mr and Mrs Z) used the services of a law firm for personal, business and trust related matters over a period of 20 years. When the couple separated the firm accepted instructions from Mr Z to act in a relationship property dispute with Mrs Z. However, the firm…
Lodged certifications without authority
A lawyer, B, has been censured and fined $6,000 for making two certifications to Land Information New Zealand when he did not have reasonable grounds to believe the matters certified were true.
Lawyers must ensure reasonable grounds exist before filing documents alleging fraud or dishonesty
A Standards Committee has determined that a lawyer’s conduct was unsatisfactory when he filed submissions alleging his client had causes of action in fraud and deceit, later accepting that he should have tested and reviewed the information provided by his client. The lawyer had breached one of his duties as…
Conflicting duties, threats and duty of confidence breaches by immigration lawyer
A lawyer has been censured and fined $10,000 by a Standards Committee for her conduct relating to an immigration matter and employment dispute.
Misleading billing practices breach professional standards
A Standards Committee found that a lawyer’s billing practices were misleading and lacking in transparency, leading to a determination of unsatisfactory conduct. The Committee directed anonymous publication of its determination for educative purposes.
Duty to promptly disclose information to clients
The conduct of a lawyer trustee was found to be unsatisfactory where he failed to promptly inform his co-trustees, who were also his clients, that the trust owed GST in relation to a property resettlement that had occurred several years earlier. A finding of unsatisfactory conduct was made,…
Importance of identifying conflicting client interests
A Standards Committee found that a lawyer had conflicting duties, thereby breaching rule 6.1 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules, where the lawyer acted for a couple in the purchase of a property, and their interests conflicted due to last minute changes to their borrowing and security arrangements.
Conflict of duties when acting for family trust and estate
A Standards Committee found that a practitioner had conflicting duties when “effectively wearing four hats” relating to a family trust and a related estate. The Committee made several adverse findings, concluding the conduct was unsatisfactory and fining the practitioner $10,000.
Loading...
Show more