LW v VI

JurisdictionNew Zealand
JudgeLCRO Vaughan
Judgment Date08 July 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] NZLCRO 45
Docket NumberLCRO 157/2011
CourtLegal Complaints Review Officer
Date08 July 2012

Concerning an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

Concerning a determination of the Wellington Standards Committee 1

Between
Lw
Applicant
and
VI
Respondent

[2012] NZLCRO 45

court:

LCRO Vaughan

LCRO 157/2011

Legal Complaints Review Officer

Application for review against determination of the Standards Committee that practitioner's name be published — Committee had found unsatisfactory conduct in respect of representation of client on criminal matter — impact of failure to maintain professional standards in criminal law area — effect of name publication on those who practiced with practitioner — whether publication was necessary or desirable in the public interest.

DECISION
Introduction
1

This is an application for review by LW against a determination of the Standards Committee to publish his name following an earlier finding against him of unsatisfactory conduct. The result of this review is that the determination of the Committee is confirmed but modified to include publication of the details of the first determination.

Background
2

VI was involved in an altercation at a service station and was charged with a criminal offence. He instructed LW to represent him in defending the charge but was convicted.

3

Following VI's complaint to the Complaints Service of the New Zealand Law Society, the Standards Committee made a finding that LW's conduct in representing VI constituted unsatisfactory conduct. He was fined $1,000 and was ordered to take advice in relation to the management of his practice at his own expense. In addition, he was ordered to pay costs of $1,000 to the New Zealand Law Society.

4

The Committee sought submissions from the parties as to publication of its determination and LW's name. VI filed submissions – LW did not.

5

In its determination dated 31 May 2011, the Committee determined pursuant to section 142(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 to publish LW's name in Law Talk and on the New Zealand Law Society website such publication to include LW's name but not VI's name or any details that might identify him.

6

LW has applied for a review of that determination.

Review
7

LW requested to appear in support of his application and a review hearing was held in Wellington on 31 May 2012. LW was accompanied by LX, the consultant from whom LW was directed by the Standards Committee to obtain advice with regard to the management of his practice.

8

At the outset of the hearing, I provided LW with a copy of VI's email dated 17 January 2012 to this Office which had not previously been provided to him. I advised that LW had a period of one week from the date of the hearing to provide any comments on that email. No comments have been received from him.

LW's submissions
9

The Standards Committee invited both VI and LW to provide submissions with regard to the issue of publication but none were received from LW. It would seem that it was only following the determination by the Committee to order publication of LW's name that he has been prompted to belatedly take some action in his own defence. The scope of a review by this Office enables LW to have his submissions considered, but these are submissions which should have been before the Standards Committee.

10

LW advises that he has been in practice for [many] years. His practice is primarily conveyancing based, but he has been undertaking criminal briefs since 1982. He advised that at the time of his instructions by VI, he was approved by the Legal Services Agency to undertake criminal jury trials.

11

His practice is conducted in conjunction with others under the name of AEB and he himself employs a staff solicitor and a support person. At the review hearing, he advised that he intended to [leave the legal profession] and is no longer undertaking legal aid assignments. He confirms, however, that he still acts for persons facing criminal charges who are not in receipt of legal aid.

12

LW made the following submissions in support of his contention that his name should not be published:

  • a) that in [many] years’ practice, he has not previously been the subject of any complaint;

  • b) that publication would detrimentally AEB Law; and

  • c) that publication would detrimentally affect his family and his reputation.

13

While it is acknowledged that the LCRO Guidelines and those followed by the Standards Committee do take note of whether the practitioner has been the subject of any previous complaints, it must be borne in mind that it is only since 2008 that the “consumer protection” element of the disciplinary process has been in place. Prior to this, the disciplinary machinery of the Law Society had, as its benchmarks, standards considered to be appropriate by other lawyers. The definition of unsatisfactory conduct in section 12 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act focuses on the standards expected by a member of the public of a reasonably competent lawyer. Consequently, the weight to attach to the previous disciplinary history of a practitioner when considering publication is limited.

14

Any publication would refer to LW's name only. It would not therefore directly affect his staff or those practising in conjunction with him. It is acknowledged that there may be some impact where it is known that the person is either employed by LW or practises in conjunction with him in AEB. However, those persons do not thereby become imputed with LW's conduct and there would be limited if any adverse consequences arising from this.

15

The effect on LW's reputation...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT