New Zealand Law Society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The New Zealand Law Society is the parent body for barristers and solicitors in New Zealand. Membership is compulsory for all practising lawyers, in accordance with the Law Practitioners Act 1982. It was established in 1869, and operates in conjunction with a number of district law societies, such as the Auckland District Law Society.
New Zealand law societies have a reputation of bending over backwards to protect their own members; the Auckland District Law Society being the recipient of scathing criticism from the Privy Council.[1]
In 2003 the Privy Council wrote the following concluding comments with respect to the Auckland District Law Society:
Their Lordships are not disposed to leave this case without expressing their dismay that a professional body representing solicitors, who have the most solemn professional obligation to honour their undertakings, should have seen fit to argue that it was free to disregard the obligations which Mr Ennor undertook on its behalf. The Society may wish to consider whether the most honourable course would be for it to return the documents without an order requiring it to do so.”[2]
The Canterbury District Law Society is one of the District Law Societies formed by the Law Practitioners Act 1982.
It functions include:
1. Promoting and encouraging proper conduct among the members of the legal profession
2. Suppressing illegal, dishonourable, or improper practices by members of the legal profession
3. Preserving and maintaining the integrity and status of the legal profession
Integrity concerns sometimes result in fines, such as the paltry $2,000 fine that the Canterbury District Law Society imposed on a Canterbury lawyer for:
"…acting for both his long-term mistress and her unwitting husband, in a deal in which the husband signed away his interest in the family home…"
The Canterbury District Law Society did not strike off this lawyer for such conduct. This is unusual, if not distasteful, given that the lawyer appears from all reports to have been having relations with his client's wife at the time he was getting his client to sign away his interest in the family home.[3]
[edit] References
- ^ Viewers have their say, Kiwis First - KIWI NEWS, KIWI EDITORIALS
- ^ Privy Council Appeal No. 34 of 2002, (1) B and Others and, (2) Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co. (Appellants), v. (1) Auckland District Law Society and, (2) Gary J. Judd (Respondents). Paragraph 74, 'Conclusion'.
- ^ www.stuff.co.nz/4242757a19715.html
