12 Nov 2020
The court affirmed the Tribunal's three month suspension and, having balanced the practitioner's legitimate need to conclude pressing client matters against the public interest in timely enforcement of discipline, ordered the suspension to commence on 19 December 2020 and upheld the costs order of $63,675.80 (excluding GST).
31 Jan 2020
A suspended practising lawyer undertaking legal work in the form of dictation, drafting or instructing preparation of legal documents for others constitutes provision of regulated services under the Act; acting as a trustee does not presumptively exempt a practising lawyer from s7 liability and suspension's protective purpose requires a broad construction of "regulated services" so that the appellant's detailed dictations and document preparation in certain particulars amounted to legal work and, in some instances, disgraceful and dishonourable conduct while suspended, whereas other, more per…
21 Dec 2016
On a rehearing the High Court concluded the Tribunal's imposition of a three month suspension was disproportionate given the misconduct was well‑intentioned, curable and capable of remediation; suspension would have disproportionate punitive effects (including likely ACC de‑accreditation) and rehabilitation and less restrictive conditions (as already imposed) were sufficient to protect the public; consequently the suspension and two specified conditions were set aside while other supervision and training conditions remained.
18 Nov 2014
The 10 month suspension imposed by the Tribunal was excessive in all the circumstances; although failure to comply with disciplinary orders is serious and can warrant suspension, the appellant's subsequent compliance, the comparative authorities and the true weight of his disciplinary history justified reducing the suspension to four months, while confirming censure and costs.
25 Sept 2013
Balancing the r 3.16 factors, the Court concluded the Law Society has a legitimate statutory interest in inspecting the limited categories of documents sought to assess alleged professional misconduct; orderly and fair administration of justice, open justice and the Society's regulatory duties outweigh the speculative risk to privacy/confidentiality provided safeguards are imposed — inspection is permitted, copying is permitted subject to leave where documents are privileged, confidential or raise privacy interests, and use of copies is restricted to investigatory and disciplinary purposes.
23 May 2013
The stay of the first interlocutory judgment was declined because the judge was assigned to hear the related judicial review proceedings imminently, any bad faith allegations are to be determined in those judicial review proceedings, and combining the access application with the judicial review hearing would avoid prejudice to the applicants and render a stay unnecessary; consequential procedural directions (telephone conference to consider combined hearing) were ordered.
31 Mar 2006
The Court awarded costs to the Applicant on the High Court scale band 2B because the matter fell within that band, the Respondent offered no satisfactory basis to defer costs until appeal, and the Applicant undertook not to enforce the costs award until the appeal is disposed of; the Court refused certification for second counsel.
15 Mar 2006
The court granted a short procedural extension to file a response on costs but refused to stay the suspension because the respondent was suspended for incompetence and it would be irresponsible to allow him to continue practising; he may only assist in a non-practising capacity.