AK v ZP
| Jurisdiction | New Zealand |
| Judgment Date | 10 February 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] NZLCRO 6 |
| Date | 10 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | LCRO 104/2010 |
| Court | Legal Complaints Review Officer |
Concerning An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
and
Concerning a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 1
[2011] NZLCRO 6
LCRO 104/2010
Application for review of an Auckland Standards Committee (“the Committee”) decision that the complaint did not raise any professional standards issues — Legal Services Agency assigned respondent to act for the applicant in respect of criminal charges — respondent prepared an application to vacate a guilty plea for the applicant — applicant alleged billing was inappropriate and concerns relating to decisions made as to witnesses — whether the Committee decision was the appropriate one to be made in all the circumstances.
Mr AK as the Applicant
Mr ZP as the Respondent
The Auckland Standards Committee 1
The New Zealand Law Society
The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
The Respondent was assigned by the Legal Services Agency to represent the Applicant in respect of criminal charges.
At the time of his appointment, the Applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges and been offered diversion.
However, the Applicant declined to accept that he had committed the offences and accordingly the Respondent prepared an application to vacate the guilty plea.
The complaint arose out of the conduct of this Application by the Respondent and the breakdown of the relationship between the parties.
In his complaint, the Applicant alleged that:
-
• There was inadequate communication between himself and the Respondent, and that the Respondent failed to respond to emails and phone messages.
-
• The service provided was inadequate.
-
• He had concerns relating to decisions made as to witnesses.
-
• There were inappropriate comments made by the Respondent.
In addition, the Applicant made a number of allegations concerning billing by the Respondent, describing it as over and double billing. He made a number of comments in conjunction with this relating to his perception of the Respondent's lifestyle.
The outcome sought by the Applicant was that the Respondent should be required to repay all fees paid by the Legal Services Agency, and that compensation in the sum of $50,000 should be paid to him for hardship, humiliation and time wasting.
The Standards Committee considered all of the material before it and formed the view that the complaint did not raise any professional standards issues.
The material considered by the Committee included the complaint, the Practitioner's response and further comments by the Applicant.
As a result of the Committee's view, it determined that no further action in respect of the complaint would be taken and resolved accordingly pursuant to s 138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (“the Act”).
In his application for review, the Applicant has in essence sought that the LCRO re-examine the complaint in full.
In conducting this review, I have considered the Standards Committee file and correspondence received by this office.
The parties agreed that the review may be carried out on the basis of the information before me, and consented accordingly pursuant to s 206 (2) (b) of the Act.
One of the main aspects of the complaint and the application for review relates to what the Applicant considers to be over and double billing, as well as pointing to various actions taken by the Respondent which he states was only designed to increase the fees chargeable by the Respondent.
The Respondent was assigned this case by the Legal Services Agency (“LSA”).
Complaints concerning any aspect of representation by a solicitor assigned by the LSA should in the first instance be referred to that body.
This was done by the Applicant, and attached to the complaint, is a letter from the LSA to the Applicant dated 2 February 2010. In that letter, the Grants Officer acknowledges that there had been a breakdown between the parties, but found no reason to doubt the work undertaken or invoiced by the Respondent.
The Applicant was invited to apply for an examination of the invoices pursuant to s 38 of the Legal Services Act. There is no evidence as to whether or not the Applicant took this step.
However, it is reasonable to assume that the LSA would have scrutinised the invoices tendered by the Respondent and queried any practices such as that alleged by the Applicant.
The Respondent employs staff who are allocated various tasks as appropriate on files within the office and this would no doubt create greater efficiencies than if the Respondent had carried out all the tasks himself.
In the circumstances, I agree with the Standards Committee's decision to take this particular aspect no further.
The Applicant has complained about the conduct of the Respondent with regard to various witnesses or potential witnesses.
As a general...
To continue reading
Request your trial