NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v BURTON CA700/2014 [2014] NZCA 621

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v BURTON CA700/2014 [2014] NZCA 621

Because the respondent pleaded guilty to serious offences of obtaining by deception involving a significant misappropriation of $105,776 and a gross breach of trust, he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll and his name must be struck off to protect the administration of justice and the public.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZCA 621
Parties
Applicant: New Zealand Law Society; Respondent: Shane Peter Burton
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Strike Off Application Under S 266 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / Court of Appeal Determination on Papers Pursuant to S 267 After High Court Reserved Decision
Outcome
Respondent struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors
Legal Topics
Striking Off, Obtaining by Deception, Fit and Proper Person, Disciplinary Procedure, Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 S 266, Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 S 267
Professional Discipline Criminal Law Regulatory Law Striking Off Obtaining by Deception Fit and Proper Person Disciplinary Procedure Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 S 266 +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

New Zealand Law Society

Applicant

Shane Peter Burton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Strike Off Application Under S 266 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / Court of Appeal Determination on Papers Pursuant to S 267 After High Court Reserved Decision

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be struck off the roll under s 266 following convictions for obtaining by deception
  2. 2 Whether Part 7 disciplinary procedures were available or suitable given respondent did not hold a practising certificate at the time of the conduct
  3. 3 Whether striking off was necessary to maintain standards of the profession and protect the public

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondent pleaded guilty to serious offences of obtaining by deception involving a significant misappropriation of $105,776 and a gross breach of trust, he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll and his name must be struck off to protect the administration of justice and the public.

Court Disposition

Respondent struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors

Orders

  • Respondent's name struck off the roll pursuant to s 266 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
  • No order for costs