Lawtalk 821 web

Law LawTalk 21 June 2013 路 821

Courts The key to accessing justice Feature 路 Page 04

HELP IS AT HAND To provide a service for lawyers seeking independent help with an issue in their life, the New Zealand Law Society has signed an agreement with Lifeline Aotearoa.

Lifeline offers a discounted rate to New Zealand Law Society members and their families. Lifeline’s team of qualified professional counsellors is experienced in working with clients across a broad range of issues.

They can help with day to day issues such as stress, anxiety, burnout, depression, relationship issues, grief, trauma and addiction.

Phone lifeline Aotearoa: (09) 909 8750 email: face2face@lifeline.org.nz

PRACTISING WELL Supporting lawyers since 2009.

m y. l a w s o c i e t y. o r g . n z / p r a c t i s i n g - w e l l

2

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

Contents.

Access to the courts to resolve civil disputes is an important part of a just and democratic society, but it’s not fair on the taxpayer to ask them to bear the whole cost of resolving private disputes

— Chester Borrows, Minister for Courts

Feature. Page 4

Regulars People in the Law

..............................................................................

Moving towards CPD

..........................................................................

From 1 April 2014 all New Zealand lawyers will be required to complete a minimum annual level of continuing professional development (CPD)

Practising Well

..................................................................................

Building better wellbeing involves neither an isolated solution nor a quick fix.

Effective Practice

...............................................................................

Imagination is not something traditionally associated with the naming of a law firm.

Technology

.......................................................................................

The concept of a paperless law office is well established. The idea of going paperless in court however, especially in a jury trial, is not met with the same degree of acceptance.

Law Reform Report

............................................................................

A government bill designed to enhance housing affordability contains a number of measures which are unclear and could cause procedural and interpretive problems.

The Bookshelf

...................................................................................

Anti Money Laundering

.......................................................................

12 15 16 18 20 22 23 24

More than $1.5 billion of criminal funds is conservatively estimated to be laundered through New Zealand businesses every year, and by some estimates may be as high as $10 billion.

From the Ministry

..............................................................................

26

Justice is critically important and how people experience it, especially through the court system, is equally so.

From the Courts

.................................................................................

The High Court recently confirmed that for the purposes of means testing for the Ministry of Social Development’s residential care subsidy, the relevant threshold for gifts applies to the combined gifting (of the couple)

Professional Indemnity

.......................................................................

What does it really mean when an insurer loads a dollar figure against a notification or claim you have recently made?

Branch News

.....................................................................................

Law Foundation

Rachael Breckon

28

The New Zealand courts are going through a period of unprecedented change.

29 30

................................................................................

32

................................................................

33

.........................................................................

35

Lawyers Complaints Service Classified Advertising

Courts: The key to accessing justice

27

.........................................................

NZLS CLE upcoming programmes

Feature

Page 04

Cover image by Flickr user ‘sausyn’ cnd

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

01

From the Law Society Iain Hutcheson

L

ast year’s announcement of court closures came as a surprise to the profession, which felt it had not been consulted about decisions that impacted not only on lawyers’ daily working lives but also access to justice.

Many members of the profession provided feedback though the Law Society’s Courthouse Committee and directly to the ministry. I am grateful for those contributions.

Since then considerable work has been done to build the relationships between the Courthouse Committee, the Minister for Courts and the Ministry of Justice.

I am pleased to observe the ministry making efforts to engage earlier with the profession – the fact that lawyers have something meaningful to input into improving the process has been acknowledged. This is an encouraging step forward.

Examples of the changes that have come about through meaningful discussion with the ministry can be highlighted by changes to the Hutt Valley courts.

After the announcement of the proposal to close the Upper Hutt Court and amalgamate it with the Lower Hutt court to create the Hutt Valley District Court, the lawyers who gave up time to attend meetings with the ministry reinforced that we have a voice and wish to be consulted early and in a meaningful way.

These Wellington branch-led negotiations resulted in tangible changes. They included: increased staffing levels; a change of list organisation; a pending but substantial increase to the

02

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

number of available interview rooms; a lawyers’ common room with Wi-Fi available; and the allocation of a resident judge.

While the Courthouse Committee is committed to working through practical changes that ensure courthouses meet the users’ needs, the big picture is also always front of mind. It is vital that any courtroom changes do not impact on the fundamental right to access to justice. It is a pivotal plank in our justice system that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.

If lawyers do not defend principles of access to justice and the rule of law, over time the reputation of our justice system will likely suffer. I acknowledge that it is important the courts introduce new technology and evaluate their processes so they are modern institutions that remain in touch with society. Equally however, it is important that the courts do not hastily move to new platforms without proper testing or consideration, in which respects the profession’s knowledge, experience and understanding is so valuable.

There have been many recent changes in courts.

That process looks to continue with further rollouts of audio visual links planned, discussions about the design of the Christchurch Justice Precinct taking place, earthquake strengthening and design changes to many courthouses and the introduction of the Electronic Operating Model in the criminal jurisdiction. The Courthouse Committee is positive about the future of the country’s courthouses and looks forward to continuing healthy dialogue with the ministry on behalf of the profession.

More information on changes in the courts can be found in the feature starting on page 4 of this issue of LawTalk.

Iain Hutcheson New Zealand Law Society Courthouse Committee Convenor

LawTalk More than 12,000 copies of LawTalk are distributed each issue. The magazine of the New Zealand Law Society, LawTalk is sent to every lawyer in New Zealand who holds a current practising certificate.

Although the number of lawyers with practising certificates varies, it is typically around 11,500. Others who receive LawTalk include members of the judiciary, Law Society associate members, legal executives, Members of Parliament, media, academics and others involved in the legal services industry.

26 Waring Taylor Street, Wellington

DX SP20202 or PO Box 5041, Lambton Quay, Wellington 6145, New Zealand Edi t o r: Frank Neill 04 463 2982 editor@lawsociety.org.nz Wri t ers : Rachael Breckon 04 463 2910 rachael.breckon@lawsociety.org.nz Elliot Sim 04 463 2902 elliot.sim@lawsociety.org.nz Advert i s ing: Christine Wilson 04 463 2905 advertising@lawsociety.org.nz Subscript ion I nq u irie s : subscriptions@lawsociety.org.nz Desi gn: Andrew Jacombs 04 463 2981 andrew.jacombs@lawsociety.org.nz Pri nt i ng: Lithoprint, Wellington

ISSN 0114-989X Lawtalk is printed on an environmentally responsible paper, produced using Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF), FSC® Certified Mixed Source pulp sourced from Well Managed & Legally Harvested Forests.

News Points Considerable concern over bill The New Zealand Law Society has written to Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson QC to advise that it is considerably concerned with some of the aspects of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill (No 2) which was passed through Parliament under urgency in one sitting day.

Law Society President Chris Moore says a section in the new law limits the right to judicial review. Although the AttorneyGeneral correctly advised Parliament that this could not be justified under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1993, the Bill was passed.

“Ousting the jurisdiction of the courts is a step Parliament should only consider in truly exceptional cases, where there is compelling reason to do so, and it should be able to be rigorously debated,” he says.

Case for a higher sentence The Court of Appeal has held that on an appeal by the Solicitor-General a prison sentence can be increased for failure to provide assistance to the authorities.

This follows the court’s decision on 7 May in R v Thomas ([2013] NZCA 133).

The court quashed a four-year prison sentence imposed on Mr Thomas in the District Court for aggravated burglary and arson. It substituted a sentence of five and a half years imprisonment on each of the aggravated burglary charges and on the arson charge.

R v Carran (CA469/95, 11 December 1995) was the only decision it was referred to in which a sentence had been increased on

“There are constitutional implications here of which all New Zealanders should be aware. Not allowing the courts to review decisions made in exercise of a legislative function and refusing to provide reasons for rushing the legislation through is quite alien to the expectations we have of our parliamentary process.”

appeal for failure to provide assistance to the authorities, the court said.

“Carran did not involve an appeal by the Solicitor-General to increase a sentence and was concerned only with the propriety of activating the suspended sentence under a statutory power to do so,” the court said.

“We have no doubt that the circumstances of this case clearly justify an increase in Mr Thomas’ sentence. He deliberately refused to give evidence in accordance with his [earlier] statement.”

After evaluating overseas case law, the court, at [29], listed a set of “key points” relating to such cases. The full judgment is at http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/in-practice/ the-changing-law/case-commentary/r-vthomas/R-v-Thomas-2013-nzca-133.pdf.

The views expressed in LawTalk are not necessarily those of the New Zealand Law Society. Articles may be reproduced provided acknowledgment is given to LawTalk.

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

03

04

路 LawTalk 821 路 21 June 2013

Courts The key to accessing justice

FEATURE BY RACHAEL BRECKON

Photo by Andrew Jacombs

The New Zealand courts are going through a period of unprecedented changes. These range from changes to court processes with the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which comes into force on 1 July, through to the introduction of different technologies.

This year the legal profession has also seen some courts close and others move to hearing only. Some practitioners have faced practical hurdles and for others concerns around access to justice have been raised.

This LawTalk feature looks around the country at present and future courthouse changes and how they impact on lawyers and the law.

LawTalk 821 路 21 June 2013 路

05

Courts with fee changes from 1 July 2013 · · · · · ·

CIVIL COU RT F E E C HANGES CO M ME N C E

· · · ·

·

recovery for the majority of civil court and tribunal fees regimes will increase to 17% from 14% on 1 July 2013. The change will raise approximately $4.1 million per year, according to the Ministry of Justice.

“Access to the courts to resolve civil disputes is an important part of a just and democratic society, but it’s not fair on the taxpayer to ask them to bear the whole cost of resolving private disputes,” Minister for Courts Chester Borrows says.

Law Society Civil Litigation and Tribunals Committee convenor, Andrew Beck says the Law Society has previously raised concerns that the ministry’s approach to setting court fees is largely revenue driven, and this continues to be the case. “One notable increase in fees concerns the fees for judicial review and appeals,” Mr Beck says.

These have risen by 12%, compared with the fees for ordinary proceedings which have risen by only 1.5%. “Little thought appears to have been given to access to justice when determining these amounts,” he says.

Hearing fees have also remained inconsistent. Supreme Court fees are set at $1,000 per day, the Court of Appeal at $2,700 per day and the High Court $3,200 per day. “There does not appear to be any clear explanation for the discrepancy,” Mr Beck says.

However, Mr Borrows assures the profession new fees won’t apply in any courts until there is a mechanism for a waiver to be granted. “What we see with waivers,

Supreme Court Court of Appeal High Court District Courts Māori Appellate Court and Māori Land Court Tribunal fee changes from 1 July 2013 Disputes The Customs Appeal Authority Immigration and Protection Tribunal Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal Legal Complaints Review Officer

· Licencing Authority of Second-hand Dealers and Pawnbrokers · Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal · Taxation Review Authority · Trans-Tasman Occupations Tribunal

Further fee changes likely in 2013

· Civil enforcement fees in the District Courts, which are dependent on changes to the District Courts Rules coming into effect first.

alongside Family Court fees, is that waivers are granted in the majority of cases,” he says.

The ministry has also persisted with its plans to require full payment of hearing fees in advance in the High Court, with provision for refunds where the proceeding is settled before the hearing date – despite strong

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

· Employment Court · Environment Court

Tribunals with likely fee changes in 2014:

· Accident Compensation Appeal Authority · Accident Compensation Appeals (District Courts Registry) · Real Estate Disciplinary Tribunal · Copyright Tribunal (licensing schemes)

opposition from the Law Society.

However, Mr Beck says it is “pleasing to note” that some fees have been set at more realistic levels, notably those for interlocutory applications, and that appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court now have the same fee for commencement.

Courtroom 2 at the High Court in Wellington. Photo by Andrew Jacombs

06

Courts with likely fee changes in 2014:

Audio MIN IST E R ENCOUR AG E S L AW YER S TO U T I L I S E AVL TECHN OLOGY

visual links (AVL) technology’s widespread use in the courts has, to a degree, been “stymied” but it is available to interested court users, according to Minister for Courts Chester Borrows.

The introduction of office-to-court trials in the Family Court was scheduled to be officially rolled out this year. However, the transition to the electronic platform did not run as smoothly as anticipated and has been delayed.

Mr Borrows admits: “It has been a very frustrating time trying to get players within the sector – judges, lawyers, and some court staff – to grasp onto the opportunity of working with AVL and web-based video conferencing.”

But Mr Borrows encourages interested lawyers to enquire and take advantage of

The technology will save court users from having to travel long distances and endure long waiting times

the court-to-court AVL options available in seven courts.

Lawyers representing clients who live in separate regions with courtroom AVL facilities can request to use that technology and have the case heard remotely.

“In some areas there has been quite a hunger for people to do that. My suggestion is lawyers in other parts of the country, if they want to, seek leave from judges to be able to appear remotely when that can be done,” Mr Borrows says.

“We are moving quite quickly down a six-month trial for web-based so that will be office-to-court,” Mr Borrows says.

The technology will save court users from “having to travel long distances” and “endure long waiting times” for what end up to be short hearings, Mr Borrows says.

Office to court AVL

Last year Mr Borrows announced office-to-court AVL would be tested in Southland but the judiciary in the region pulled out due to security concerns.

Since then a number of mock hearings have been undertaken to prove that Family Court business can be effectively carried out over video conference links, according Continued on following page ...

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

07

Continued from previous page ... to the ministry.

The Nelson and Whangarei regions have now agreed to take part in a six-month “proof of concept test”.

The ministry is currently anticipating that the first video conferences for Family Court business may occur in August 2013.

The proof of concept will focus on judicial conferences, allowing counsel to test for

conferences. Participation will be optional and counsel will retain the choice to drive to the judge’s location to attend the judicial conference in person.

Counsel using video conferences for court business will receive full training on both the technology itself and the protocols and procedures that will be in place.

The ministry, in consultation with the Principal Family Court Judge, will appoint an independent evaluator to assess the effectiveness of the proof of concept.

The evaluation will look at both the technology components and the protocols and procedures in place, as well as the overall impact on court business.

Counsel using video conferences

... will receive full training on both the technology itself and the ... procedures that will be in place themselves that the technology is robust and effective.

Counsel will attend the judicial conferences at their local court then be connected by video conference to the judge who will be in a different court.

AVL proof of concept

The ministry convened a working group lead by the Principal Family Court Judge this month. It includes judges and representatives of the Law Society, to assess options for court-lawyer video conferencing.

The working group will focus on four questions: · Could video conferencing be a viable way to conduct Family Court business? · Is it practical to have video conferencing direct from the courtroom to lawyers’ offices or should lawyers attend local courts for video conferences? · What protocols and procedures need to be in place to ensure video conferences are both safe and effective ways of carrying out court business? · What types of proceedings should be included within the proof of concept?

The working group will attend a demonstration of one or more options for implementation, and will be asked to consult with their colleagues.

Based on the outcomes of the discussions with the working group, the ministry is currently anticipating that the first video conferences for Family Court business may occur in August 2013.

Staff will begin to offer video conference slots when scheduling Family Court judicial

08

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

AVL EQUIPPED COURTS Permanently set up courts · · · · · · · ·

Auckland DC Christchurch DC Greymouth DC Invercargill DC New Plymouth DC Whanganui DC Manukau DC Hamilton DC

View from the bench of the No. 1 Courtroom in the Old High Court,

Courts with permanent mobile sets · Gisborne DC · Wellington DC

Mobile sets available at · · · ·

Nelson DC Blenheim DC Kaitaia DC Whangarei DC

AVL TO BE EXPANDED A $27.8 million expansion of audiovisual links (AVL) to a further 14 District Courts and nine prisons was announced

by Corrections Minister Anne Tolley and Courts Minister Chester Borrows on 12 June.

The expansion will take place over the

next two years, with connected courts able to link with connected prisons anywhere in the country. Arohata Prison, Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility and Christchurch Women’s Prison are due to be linked in this year. Hawke’s Bay, Rimutaka, Invercargill and Manawatu Prisons and Northland Region Corrections Facility are scheduled to be linked in next year. Otago Corrections Facility is scheduled for February 2015.

The courts scheduled to be linked in are: New Plymouth and Nelson (this year), Blenheim, Gisborne, Napier, Whangarei, Hutt Valley, Wellington, Rotorua, Tauranga, Invercargill and Palmerston North (next year), and North Shore and Dunedin (in 2015).

AVL capability is already in place in Mt Eden, Waikeria, Christchurch Men’s and Whanganui prisons.

Judges continue to have discretion to require prisoners to appear in court.

part of the Supreme Court complex in Wellington. Photo by Andrew Jacombs

H UTT VALLE Y COU RT RECEIVES MI X E D R E VIE W S

The transition has been going as well as it can do under the circumstances

practitioners will have “mixed reviews” of how the closure of the Upper Hutt District Court and the creation of the Hutt Valley District Court impacted on the Lower Hutt Court site.

This is according to Mark Wilton, New Zealand Law Society Wellington Branch President, who spoke at the Hutt Valley District Court opening on 25 March this year.

The closure was part of a District Court restructure announced by the Minister for Courts in December last year. The Whataroa, Warkworth and Feilding courts were also closed. Although some lawyers will think the transition “hasn’t been an issue” many still see it as a significant change to their practice and to the detriment of access to justice in the region, he says.

“Access to justice has changed, but the transition has been going as well as it can do under the circumstances,” Mr Wilton says.

Mr Wilton says the reality of District Courts in New Zealand is that much of the work is either criminal or family and that users are disadvantaged and vulnerable for one reason or another.

“The business of this newly constituted District Court (as it is with any District Court) is not just to administer justice but also to provide access to justice,” Mr Wilton says.

“It is a challenging time in the justice sector. The legal landscape is in constant change. The way in which business is done in this court will change again in July with the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Act, and as the electronic operating model projects go live.”

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

09

e B ENC H DEL AYE D

scheduled roll-out of electronic bench has been delayed.

The new technology that allows judges to manage criminal cases via an electronic document system was scheduled to be rolled across District Courts starting in 1 July this year.

However “getting computers to talk interagency required a more complex programme” than the Ministry of Justice had previously thought, according to Minister for Courts Chester Borrows. “We want to make sure that everything is joined up before we push the go button,” he says.

The new schedule has the process begin in July with all criminal courts to be operating on an Electronic Operating Model in the first quarter of next year, Mr Borrows says.

The ministry aims to make the most of all technological platforms with the eventual

We want to make sure that everything is joined up before we push the go button Members of the judiciary assembled in ceremonial dress in the Old High Court on the occasion of the swearing in of Justice David Gendall (hc). In the front row, from left: Justices France (ca), Hammond (ca), Glazebrook (sc) and Gendall (hc), Chief Justice Elias (sc), Justices Arnold (sc) and Stevens (ca). Visible in back row: Justice MacKenzie (hc). Photo by Andrew Jacombs.

10

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

goal being the “whole of the criminal process moving to a paperless system and electronic files. If we are expecting the legal fraternity to be duty solicitors in the criminal court we need to make it as easy as possible for them,” Mr Borrows says.

TABLETS WAY FORWARD FOR ENVIRONMENT COURT

computers may hold the key to decreasing the quantity of paper in the Environment Courts.

Last year, two divisions of the Environment Court ran pilot trials of iPads to conduct major proposal hearings, where the panel members and the hearing manager were issued with tablets. Tablets are also being trialled by the Waitangi Tribunal.

Acting Principal Environment Judge Laurie Newhook ran a division which used iPads in the Buller Coal hearing that extended for more than a month late last year. Judge Harland ran a division which trialled tablets in the case concerning a Hurunui wind farm proposal.

In a speech by Judge Newhook to the 3rd Annual Environmental Law and Regulation Conference last year, he said surveys of members of the court and support staff have indicated that the trials were a huge success.

“Counsel for the major parties also used iPads, and were able to move with the court at a much greater pace than traditional paperbased hearings,” he said. “Visitors to our Registries and Chambers are flabbergasted at the quantities of paper that confront them.”

“It really is necessary to wage war on paper.

Why shouldn’t it be thought efficient to be able to save many days of hearing and at the same time to be able to avoid lugging around the countryside, 20, 30, or more lever-arch folders of material per panel member?

“Yes, there are mild security issues around use of iPads, but care in the manner of use of them can limit the risks, and are frankly not hard to implement.”

Judge Newhook told the conference he

eD UT Y W I L L S P EED U P FAM I LY CO U RT

An

initiative to speed up the time it takes to get urgent Family Court applications in front of judges has been rolled out to Family Courts across the country.

Called e-Duty, the initiative links judges around the country so that an e-Duty judge can immediately review and decide on urgent applications to the Family Court for things like orders to protect children or vulnerable people, Courts Minister Chester Borrows says.

Previously the applicant would need to wait for a judge to become available in the court where the application was made. Using existing technology and systems, e-Duty cuts the time it takes for a decision to be made on these to less than an hour, instead of up to half a day. e-Duty was developed in 2010 by Hamiltonbased Family Court Judge Noel Cocurullo and local Ministry of Justice court staff after they identified that the paper-based system they were working with took too long.

Six Family Court judges will be available to review e-Duty cases each day, and in most cases be able to make decisions within an hour of the proceeding being received.

looks forward to the day when all members of the court and their hearing managers run cases (particularly the larger cases) through iPads, evidence is exchanged among parties via a web portal and lodged in the court electronically, and material uploaded seamlessly to the tablets.

“A small and agile court like the Environment Court is the ideal place to pilot these systems for the benefit of courts across the spectrum,” Judge Newhook said.

CO U RT P RI VAT I SAT I O N I N THE UK

British

courts have been accused of literally selling out after The Times published an article accusing the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice of looking to privatise the courts.

The Times article (reported to be based on leaked documents) described a system funded by extracting larger fees from wealthy litigants and private sector investment, and encouraging hedge funds to invest by an attractive rate of return.

The ministry has denied the accusations of “wholesale privatisation”, but the UK media are expecting an announcement soon.

The accusations come on the back of a myriad of changes to the British court and justice systems. Lawyers in the United Kingdom will attend 60,000 fewer hearings each year, after the remaining committal hearing courts were abolished in late May. Many cases will now be sent straight to the Crown Court as soon as it is clear the matter is serious enough, rather than having to await a committal hearing, which can slow the justice process down significantly.

Other moves to make the justice system swifter have included introducing dedicated traffic courts to deal with low level motoring offences and increasing the use of digital technology between courts, prisons and police stations. Scrapping the hearings will help the courts to run more efficiently and ensure a better service for victims, witnesses and local communities, according to the United Kingdom Ministry of Justice.

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

11

People in the law Law firms and practitioners are invited to send in announcements of appointments, promotions, retirements or other information for this column. Submissions may be sent to editorial.lawtalk@lawsociety.org.nz. If possible, please include colour photographs of any persons mentioned.

Image files should be print resolution of 300dpi, minimum of 500px wide for headshots, 2000px wide for group shots. JPEG or TIFF format acceptable, GIF unacceptable. If digital files are unavailable, hardcopy photographic prints of minimum 10cm x 15cm may be sent to LawTalk, DX SP20202 or PO Box 5041, Lambton Quay, Wellington 6145. We will endeavour to return hardcopy photographs, provided a return address is included.

People Queen’s Birthday Honours

The following members and former members of the legal profession were honoured in the Queen’s Birthday Honours.

The late Justice Robert Chambers was made a Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to the judiciary (as reported in LawTalk 820, 7 June 2013).

Justice Christopher Allan of Auckland has been made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to the judiciary.

Emeritus Professor John Burrows QC of Christchurch has been made an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to law and education.

Judge John Callander of Auckland has been made a Companion of the Queen’s Service Order for services to the judiciary.

Judge Graeme Joyce QC of Auckland has been made a Companion of the Queen’s Service Order for services to the judiciary.

Jim Hassall of Tokoroa has been awarded the Queen’s Service Medal for services to the community.

Jane Wilson of Dunedin has been awarded the Queen’s Service Medal for services to the community.

Awards

Supreme Court judge Sir William Young QC has been awarded an honorary

doctorate by Canterbury University. This honorary doctorate of laws is Sir William’s second doctorate. He also has a PhD from Cambridge University. Sir William graduated from Canterbury University with an LLB (Hons), winning the law school’s gold medal as the top law student in his graduation year. After completing his PhD, he joined R A Young Hunter and Co in 1978, leaving in 1988 to practise as a barrister, taking silk in 1991. Sir William was appointed to the High Court in 1997 and to the Court of Appeal in January 2004. In February 2006, Sir William became President of the Court of Appeal and he was appointed to the Supreme Court bench in 2010. In June 2007, he was made a Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services as President of the Court of Appeal. Sir William was redesignated a knight companion of that order in 2009.

Appointments

Associate Judge David Gendall has been appointed a High Court Judge. Justice Gendall, who will sit in Christchurch, graduated with an LLB (Hons) from Victoria University in 1973. In 1974 he joined Hamilton firm Chapman Feenstra & Cartwright, and in 1975 was made a partner of the firm, later renamed McCaw Lewis Chapman. In 1997 he retired from partnership and joined the Law School at Waikato University as a senior lecturer. He was appointed Professor and

Sir William Young (centre) with Canterbury University Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Town (left) and UC Pro-Chancellor Sue McCormack. Photo: Duncan Shaw-Brown, Canterbury University.

12

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

Dean of the Law School in 2000. Justice Gendall was appointed a Master of the High Court in March 2002, and became an Associate Judge of the High Court when the title changed in May 2004.

The Bank of India (NZ) Ltd has appointed Auckland commercial barrister Rabin Rabindran to its Board of Directors. This firm is a subsidiary of one of the largest banks in Asia, which serves over 50 million customers. Mr Rabindran is a current director of Auckland Transport and previous chair of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority.

He chaired the Rugby World Cup Regional Transport Forum, the 2012-2015 Regional Land Transport Programme Public Hearings Panel as well as the Election Signs Bylaw Public Hearings Panel.

Wellington barrister Kim Murray has been appointed chair of Slot Coordination New Zealand Ltd. The new company has been established by New Zealand Airports Association and the Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand Inc to manage international airline slots at New Zealand’s four international airports. The four airports as well as Air New Zealand, Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin Airlines will be represented on the board. A “slot” is the full range of airport

Members of the judiciary assembled in ceremonial dress in the Old High the front row, from left; Justices France (ca), Hammond (ca), Glazebrook Stevens (ca). Visible in back row; Justice MacKenzie (hc). Photo by Andrew

infrastructure necessary for a planned air service operation to arrive at or depart from an airport on a specific date and time. The new company will also manage domestic slots at Queenstown Airport.

Jim Hodges and Eileen von Dadelszen have been appointed Commissioners of the Environment Court. John Illingsworth has been appointed a Deputy Commissioner and David Bunting and Russell Howie have been reappointed Commissioners, each for a five-year term. Mr Hodges is an Auckland-based civil and environmental engineer. Mrs von Dadelszen has 17 years’ experience as a councillor on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. She is also a resource management consultant and planner. Mr Illingsworth is an engineer and a former director and senior manager of aggregate, construction, and land development firms.

Mr Bunting, of Wellington, has served as a part-time Commissioner since 2007. He has previous experience as an international business development manager for Opus International with a focus on physical infrastructure development projects. Mr Howie is a civil engineer who, immediately before his appointment in 2001, had been an independent RMA Commissioner for Wellington local authorities and a consultant on water resources management.

On the Move Chen Palmer has appointed Yue Wang an intermediate associate.

Yue is fluent in Mandarin and English. She specialises in assisting overseas clients to invest in and migrate to New Zealand.

Court on the occasion of the swearing in of Justice David Gendall (hc). In (sc) and Gendall (hc), Chief Justice Elias (sc), Justices Arnold (sc) and Jacombs.

She also has a particular specialty in providing a full range of advice and assistance to Chinese investors, including on Overseas Investment Act applications and high value joint ventures between Chinese State Owned Enterprises and large New Zealand corporates. Yue works closely with the New Zealand government, and the Chinese Embassy and Consulate in New Zealand on various projects.

Lane Neave made the following appointments recently. Rebecca Saunders has joined the firm as a senior associate. Following seven years in London working for a specialist construcRebecca Saunders tion law firm and a large international law firm focusing on international construction arbitration, Rebecca has returned to Christchurch to apply her skills and experience to the post-earthquake rebuild. James DalJames Dalgleish gleish, solicitor, is a member of Lane Neave’s corporate and commercial team. James has experience across a range of commercial matters and in giving technical and practical advice. Cameron Cameron Mills Mills, solicitor, has recently been admitted and is a member of Lane Neave’s dispute resolution team.

Angela Searle has been made a partner of Baldwins in Christchurch. Angela returns to Baldwins Christchurch office, having been part of the team from 19932002, after building her own successful Canterbury practice. She has practised in intellectual property law and trade marks both in New Zealand and across the Tasman. David Alizade has joined the Auckland office as head of commercial. David has worked in New Zealand and Great Britain, consulting for Overture and Yahoo! Europe. He has also spent two years as managing director of a retail marketing company. Alongside David at the Auckland office, patent attorney Geoff Chisholm has been appointed senior associate. Geoff specialises in telecommunications, electronics and computer-related inventions

and has held several senior positions in the UK. Patent attorney Andy Locke has also taken a role as senior associate. Originally from the UK, Andy has involved himself with many overseas patent matters. He has joined the electronics and engineering team at Baldwins’ Wellington office. Baldwin’s has promoted six senior associates internally: Fiona Pringle, patent attorney Rachel McDonald, Sophie Thoreau, Duncan Schaut, Brigette Shone and Natalie Harre (nee Larnder), as well as six associates: patent attorney Tim Stirrup, Katherine Bowker, Piers Thoreau, Rachael Koelmeyer, Anna Bargh and Maria Sun. Piers and Rachael are still working towards qualifications.

Cullen – The Employment Law Firm has promoted Sarah Cates to senior solicitor.

Sarah specialises in employment law. Her involvement in the Wellington legal community includes membership of the Women in Law and Employment Law Committees of the New Zealand Law Society Wellington branch and the Wellington Community Law Centre. She speaks Spanish and is learning Arabic and Te Reo Māori.

Sarah-Jane Lawson has joined technology and intellectual property law firm Hudson Gavin Martin as a senior solicitor. Sarah-Jane advises on start-ups, established international businesses and commercial agreements. Her experience includes the sale and purchase of businesses, establishment and re-structuring of businesses, establishment and disestablishment of joint ventures, sales and marketing law, contracts for services and supply of product, franchise and sponsorship agreements. Before joining Hudson Gavin Martin, Sarah-Jane worked in private practice as an associate in another inner city law firm. She has also worked at Coca-Cola Amatil as legal counsel and at Bell Gully in Auckland in the corporate department.

LEGAL DICTATION SERVICES For all your legal dictation services, • a competitive hourly rate, • and friendly and efficient service email: info@ legalandaudiotranscription.co.nz

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

13

People in the law During the case, my relatives hired several lawyers and a barrister and I successfully headed off a challenge by the barrister on procedure and the admissibility of my evidence.”

While the case itself wasn’t pleasant, Karen says, she thoroughly enjoyed the legal aspect.

“At this stage all aspects of the law interest me, because I really enjoy learning Karen O’Reilly receiving her Legal Executive Diploma from Law Society President anything new.”

Chris Moore. Photo by Andrew Jacombs.

The winners of Top Legal Executive Diploma the Law Society prize of $150 for the top graduate mark in each of the six subjects examined in 2012 were: Karen O’Reilly of Wellington is the · Introduction to the Legal System, Karen top graduate from the 2012 New Zealand Law O’Reilly, Whitireia NZ Polytechnic.

Society Legal Executive Diploma examinations. · Introduction to Law Office Practice, Law Society President Chris Moore presented Maritsa Cousins, Open Polytechnic of NZ. Karen both her diploma and the top graduate · Property Law and Practice, Lyn McCarthy, certificate during the Wellington Legal ExecuOpen Polytechnic of NZ. tive Diploma Graduation ceremony on 23 May. · Business Law and Practice, Karen O’Reilly, Karen’s outstanding performance was also Whitireia NZ Polytechnic. remarkable for two other reasons. One was · Estates Law and Practice (three joint winthat she was one of the very few diploma ners): Sinead Meehan, Wintec Hamilton; graduates to have completed all six papers Lisa Godwin, AUT; and Rachael Barr, Open in one year. The second was that she also Polytechnic of NZ. received the top mark in the country for two · Litigation Law and Practice, Wendy Goodpapers: Introduction to the Legal System brand, Open Polytechnic of NZ. and Business Law and Practice.

“In over 20 years I don’t recall a student having won two top awards in the same year,” says Elizabeth Berry, the National Co-ordinator of the Law Society’s Legal Executive Diploma.

Karen, who completed the diploma through Whitireia New Zealand Polytechnic, grew up in Lower Hutt. Following overseas experience in the Cayman Islands, she returned to New Zealand three years ago.

Karen graduated from Massey University (Palmerston North) 15 years ago with a BTech (Environmental Engineering). She has spent most of her time since then working in the public sector as an analyst/engineer.

“I decided to pursue a career in law after the death of my grandmother,” Karen says.

“I contested her will as a self-litigant and successfully negotiated a suitable settlement.

14

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

On the Move Auckland firms Carter & Partners and Kirkland Morrison have merged. The new firm is known as Carter Kirkland Morrison and operates from the West Plaza Building, Albert Street. The partners are Mark Kirkland, Brent O’Callahan and Edwin Morrison with John Carter remaining as consultant to the firm. Mark practises civil litigation and commercial law while Brent is a civil litigator who has appeared in the Court of Appeal more than 30 times and the Supreme Court four times. Edwin is a commercial specialist handling commercial and property transactions. As consultant, John Carter specialises in construction, development and property law. He has previously acted as counsel, arbitrator and mediator in construction, engineering, property, valuation, rental/lease and insurance disputes.

Correction In LawTalk 819, 24 May 2013, we incorrectly spelled the name of a recently admitted lawyer. The correct spelling of her name is Rebekah Karin Ensor. We apologise for this error.

Welcome to the Profession A mother was the moving counsel for her daughter when two new lawyers were admitted in Napier last month. Pictured below, from left; Carol Hall, moving counsel for Nicole Shaw, Nicole, Stacey Wood, and her mother and moving counsel Pamela Fairbrother.

Moving Towards CPD From 1 April 2014 all New Zealand lawyers will be required to complete a minimum annual level of continuing professional development (CPD). Details of the initiative are outlined in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Ongoing Legal Education – Continuing Professional Development) Rules 2013 which await approval from the Minister of Justice. These, along with Guidelines, are available in the “Continuing Professional Development” section of the New Zealand Law Society website (www.lawsociety.org.nz).

How many hours of CPD activities need to be completed?

Lawyers providing regulated services must complete a minimum of 10 hours of activity in each CPD year (which runs from 1 April until 31 March). “Regulated services” is defined in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and means legal services (services provided by carrying out legal work for any other person), conveyancing services and services that a lawyer provides by undertaking the work of a real estate agent.

Lawyers not providing regulated services for a full year may pro-rate requirements (a table showing how this works is attached to the CPD Rules).

Lawyers who complete more than 10 hours of CPD in one CPD year may carry forward up to 5 hours into the following CPD year. There is no limit to the number of hours which can be counted for taking part in any one activity.

What qualifies as a CPD activity?

A CPD activity is learning which: · is planned and structured with a purpose and outcomes; · provides for interaction/feedback; · is related to your identified learning needs; and · is not part of your day-to-day work.

Where can this learning be completed?

· Participating in courses, seminars, conferences, training programmes, one-to-one coaching and study groups. One-to-one training or mentoring must be properly structured and planned, and must not be file-specific. The key is that the activity must progress you as a lawyer, and not be a work matter. · Distance learning programmes. These must be verifiable and provide an opportunity for interaction. · Completion of, or study towards, relevant degrees, diplomas or certificates. · Lecturing, teaching and instructing.

Teachers/instructors may include reasonable preparation time. To lead to relevant outcomes, teaching related actives should be at the tertiary level or the equivalent. Teachers learn from the research they do, from the insights they gain from reflecting on the topics they teach and from engaging with the students or participants and seeking to satisfy their learning requirements. · Writing law-related books/articles. As with teachers, writers learn from the research they do and from the insights and ideas they develop as they reflect on their subject matter and discuss it with others. If a writing activity does not require this sort of engagement, it would not qualify. You will need to use your professional judgement about this. · Preparing and presenting certain submissions.

What sort of topics could count as CPD?

There is a wide range of topics you could include in your CPD plan. If you are uncertain about them, ask yourself if they meet the criteria given above, would help you to improve your performance as a lawyer and fit in with your action plan. They could include, but are not restricted to: · Knowledge of · the law, · other relevant disciplines, · law and procedures in other countries. · Legal skills – for instance, fact gathering, writing and drafting and advocacy. · Personal management skills including time and stress management, supervision, leadership and communication. · Practice management skills including financial management, risk management, IT, strategic planning and marketing. · Ethics, professionalism and client care.

Flexibility is the key, but topics must relate to your individual learning needs as a lawyer.

Remember, not all lawyers have the same learning needs so one size does not fit all!

Transitional Period On 1 October 2013 – just over three months away – the CPD Rules will commence (subject to their approval by the Minister of Justice). There will be a sixmonth transitional period from then until the beginning of the first full CPD year on 1 April 2014. Lawyers may include up to five hours of CPD activities they complete during the transitional period in their CPD Plan and Record (as outlined in LawTalk 819, 24 May 2013) for the year beginning on 1 April 2014. A CPD Plan and Record is not needed for the transitional period.

If you want to take advantage of this, and include up to five hours of CPD activities completed during the transitional period, you will need to record the details of the activities you carry forward. The required information includes their titles, location and duration, along with documentation which verifies your attendance.

You do not need to plan the activities during the transitional period and you will not need to reflect on the outcome. It is assumed that lawyers will participate in activities which have relevance to their work and development objectives.

my.lawsociety.org.nz

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

15

Practising Well

A strong personal foundation

By Martin Wilson

Building and maintaining a strong personal foundation is a sound antidote for minimising the onset or worsening of many mental health issues. More to the point, it is a wonderful lever for improving mental health or wellbeing.

Wellbeing

Building better wellbeing involves neither an isolated solution nor a quick fix.

Being wealthy, physically well, happy go lucky, happy full stop, successful, well connected, or having wonderful friendships or relationships – in and of themselves – are not the answer.

Gallup Inc’s extensive research into people’s wellbeing conducted in 150 countries, culminating in Rath and Harter’s book Well Being: The Five Essential Elements (2010), identifies career, social, financial, physical and community wellbeing as all important.

More importantly, it’s about how these five elements interact.

However, the challenge is to get beyond simply understanding wellbeing and to actually experience it. How do you get on a path of improving wellbeing? How might you combat self-sabotage and actually experience wellbeing? Building a strong personal foundation is a sensible strategy for facilitating this shift. It is highly leveraging and self-supporting.

Personal foundation

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

Benefits

The benefits of a strong personal foundation are innumerable, but include how it: · builds capacity to meet life’s challenges head on with greater resilience; · increases self-awareness and capacity to connect with self and others; · improves willingness and ability to be

· supports more responsible and better choice making.

Personal foundation ‘stepping stones’

Building a strong personal foundation may involve a “stepping stone” approach and requires a person to: · address past or unresolved matters; · have stronger boundaries; · eliminate “tolerations” (matters that are a recurring and unnecessary burden); · ensure all needs (psychological, emotional and physiological) are met; · have high personal standards; · choose a positive and yet grounded outlook; · identify and align with core life values; · be of higher integrity; · develop good relationships with key family members; and · build strong community participation and relationships.

Treading this personal foundation path consistently and well results in at least two outcomes: a person is more likely to look and feel UP, rather than down; and, just as a tall building is founded on solid foundations, a person growing taller does so the deeper his or her personal foundation.

The challenge is to get beyond simply understanding wellbeing and to actually experience it

The term “personal foundation” used here has its origins in a personal coach training programme developed in the United States in the 1990s (Coach U, Inc).

It became apparent that to coach people in their personal and professional lives certain personal foundational stepping stones were important. These provided people with the wherewithal to address challenges, whether they be to restore more balance in their lives, achieve personal or career goals, interact with others better, or simply to feel happier or more fulfilled. There was this “wherewithal” need to build and strengthen people’s personal capacity and foundation – psychologically, emotionally and physiologically.

16

This lift in capacity and foundation helped people keep aloft their aspiration(s) for maintaining healthy work and life styles, for improving wellbeing or for pursuing other changes, especially those involving time, effort or new ways of thinking or behaving.

It also had people more fully employ their skills and resources, instead of dwelling excessively on the fundamentals of life or being beset with a problem-filled life.

· · · · · ·

vulnerable, transparent and to ask for support; expands capacity for growth and taking grounded risks; ups groundedness and operating from a place of reality; reduces the contribution of poor physical health to mental illness; lifts energy levels, which increases confidence levels; improves functionality; creates a greater sense of space and feelings of being in control and certain; and

More specific areas

The stepping stones described, while being personal foundation development areas in themselves, also incorporate other foundation areas.

A fuller, but non exhaustive list of personal foundation areas, includes each of the stepping stones, together with the following: simplifying life, developing and maintaining self-supporting habits, managing money well, having good physical health, having a solid reserve (for example, financial, emotional), living and operating in the

present moment, attracting (distinct from self-promoting, seducing or manipulating), being well protected (secure financially, risk and otherwise), pursuing work of one’s choice, being a problem-free zone, fully investing in one’s life and work, and being in a place of greater choice.

Personal foundation in action

What is involved in building a stronger personal foundation ? Here is a snapshot of four examples:

Eliminate tolerations

Tolerations include things in a person’s life that are thought of as necessary and which are not. There is an unhealthy energy fix to be had out of their presence and they thrive when not confronted. However, in raising personal standards and assuming greater personal accountability, what is not actually necessary is tolerated less. People who address their tolerations experience better energy, more quality time and space and are more focused. A quick inventory of home, family/friendships and work life invariably reveals tolerations. Targeting three to four tolerations in each area and then addressing them makes a good difference.

Set boundaries

A boundary is an imaginary line of protection a person puts in place to protect against psychological and emotional (and also physical) intrusion of others which is unhealthy or damaging. Boundaries reduce or stop what others might do to someone. When good boundaries are in place a person experiences greater peace of mind, more “space”, less fear, more trust, and it supports him or her to grow emotionally and developmentally, to build greater respect. The key is to identify what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behaviour in others in and around oneself.

And the trouble is, if you don’t risk anything you will risk even more – Erica Jong

This might be in and around a person’s time, heart or spirit. Then, it is necessary to communicate to any boundary intruder what is acceptable and what is not and to then maintain that boundary.

Simplify life

People are too busy and live far too complicated lives. People keep busy to avoid boredom, among other things. Yet it is said that boredom is the gatekeeper to peace. In order to grow and in a way that is in integrity with who a person is, “space” is required, especially time and headroom. People’s lives are crammed full of shoulds, coulds, goals, commitments, to do lists, obligations, ideas, plans etc. It is important to understand what this busyness is all about, what drives it, what gap it is filling; and then to reflect on and choose instead what is missing and more valuable. A simplified life is characterised by a life that is better aligned to a person’s values and is more about the person, not others.

It is a life that finds greater acceptance in just how things are, and does not cringe at what is not perfect or crave what is. A useful approach is to axe two or three bigger and yet non essential projects or responsibilities, to streamline time consuming tasks, and to undertake a “do – delegate – dump” review of the to do list.

Be values oriented

Values in a personal foundation context are not confined to traditional societal morals or values, although they may include these. Personal foundation-based values are more the character or essence of what people are more naturally and Legal Accounting Bureau provided comprehensive, accurate, efficient and timely management of solicitors’ trust accounts. strongly drawn or Outsourcing the management of your firm’s trust account has many advantages. inclined towards • Save time and money without effort. Val• Always know your trust account is balanced and your month end ues are of “value” certificates are filed on time • Our service is completely secure and confidential to them and have • Trusted professionals with over 20 years’ experience a fundamental • 55 law firms currently use our services. integrity; that is, Contact us now: Kathy Kell: Kathy@accountingbureau.co.nz they line up with Ph 09 444 1044, Fax 09 929 3203 - www.accountingbureau.co.nz who people say they Powered by juniorPartner. are, how they want Practice Management software you can trust. to live and what

they want for their lives. Identifying and living one’s values is harder in the presence of unmet needs, tolerations, unresolved matters, over attachment (eg, to roles or obligations, other people, substances), stress and irresponsibility. Examples of values include connection, accomplishment, leadership, creativity, contribution, beauty, adventure, ingenuity and excellence. Living a values-based life brings deeper fulfillment and may transcend mere happiness or satisfaction. The key is to identify several core, most important values (say four to six) and then to make changes to orientate oneself around those. Then it is vital to engage in projects or activities which express or give life to those values.

Summary

Building a stronger personal foundation is a key element in the path towards better mental wellbeing.

It provides an integral entry point and leveraged traction for improving wellbeing. It also is a valuable buffer or insurance against a slide into mental illness. Key points are: · building personal foundation provides a “bite a time” and nourishing avenue for lifting one’s mental and overall wellbeing; · it is largely about building capacity and foundation (wherewithal) to underpin living a more focused, productive and true-to-self life; · the benefits of building a strong personal foundation are incalculable; · it involves a stepping stone approach through various areas that bring about a shift in or realisation of one’s relationships, foci, behaviours, values, choices, time allocation, purposefulness and activities; and · it demands a good lift in awareness, what’s important, commitment, courage to change, and in taking action to bring about a tangible and worthy result.

Martin Wilson is the Principal of Selfmade Coaching (www.selfmade.co.nz). His experience includes 24 years in legal practice, partnership in a large commercial law firm, 11 years running his own commercial law practice, and a period as group manager communications and human resources for a large government agency.

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

17

Effective Practice

Names, names and names

By Geoff Adlam Imagination is not something traditionally associated with the naming of a law firm. A string of names has usually been sufficient – and sometimes they can even be the same (see the North Carolina firm of Eggers, Eggers, Eggers & Eggers, www.eggers-law.com).

History is, of course, a key driver of the names of our law firms. Lawyers and other professionals practised in partnership and partnerships carried the names of the partners. Perhaps because lawyers were involved, it has been long settled in law that as long as there is an express assignment of the rights to use a retiring partner’s name, that name can continue to be used. Jackson Russell, Duncan Cotterill and Pitt & Moore have all commemorated founding partners for at least 134 years.

The Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors, in force from 1989 until 2008, required a firm name not to be misleading, to bring the profession into disrepute, or to be unfair to other practitioners or the public. The commentary sternly warned that a name should not give an impression to the public “that the firm is multi-partners and broadly based when in fact it might be a very small firm”.

One change has been brought about by the new legislation regulating lawyers. At 1 March 2013 New Zealand had 198 law firms with “Limited” in their name – 10.8% of all law firms – up from zero before 2008.

While law firms which incorporate must advise the Law Society of their name and any change to it, the only specific requirement now for any law firm name comes in Rule 11.1 of the Lawyers Conduct and Client Care Rules: “A lawyer must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive anyone on any aspect of the lawyer’s practice.” The wording used is identical to the Fair Trading Act 1986 and there is a now a good body of case law on business names in general. More specifically, the Court of Appeal considered issues such as deceptive and misleading conduct in adoption of trading names when it upheld the granting

of an injunction against the proposed use of a law firm name in Neumegen v Neumegen & Co [1998] 3 NZLR 310.

If there have been any trends in law firm naming in New Zealand over the past few decades, they appear to have been to streamline names, add defining words such as “Law”, “Lawyers” or “Law Office”, and since the late 1990s, a move to adoption of more descriptive or functional nomenclature.

There is definitely a trend towards shorter, more focused names. During the 1990s firms started shortening their names.

Simpson Grierson Butler White, Barristers and Solicitors, was one of the early movers, becoming Simpson Grierson Law in the early 1990s. Many other firms have shortened their original names. Bell Gully Buddle Weir became Bell Gully in 2000, the same year that Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co became Russell McVeagh.

legal marketing in the United Kingdom, says he watched many English firms repositioning themselves by re-branding. This was aimed at making them more accessible to potential clients and moving away from the old fashioned and staid image traditionally associated with law firms.

“For many firms, part of this is to change the name of the firm,” he says. “However, the mistake many firms make is to adopt marketing practices that are applicable to different market contexts, such as retail products in supermarkets rather than professional services.

“So, while a short snappy brand name and advert with an accompanying jingle may be good for a soap powder and may raise your awareness and help you remember the product exists in a supermarket, is it always appropriate for law firms? There is no firm evidence either way yet to my knowledge, but all indications suggest probably not.”

To put it into context, most New Zealand law firms are still very much named after their founders or current operators. Just over one in eight – 12.6% – have a name which does not include an identifiable last name in it.

Focusing on the “unconventional” one-eighth, names can be totally driven by the firm’s line of work: Drink Drive Law Ltd (Auckland), Family Law Specialists Ltd (Porirua) and Property Law Service Ltd (Masterton) leave no doubt about the type of specialist advice and service they will provide.

Location is also another useful choice, ranging from the very specific (Cathedral Lane Law in Napier) to the suburban (Khandallah Law in Wellington) to the regional (Canterbury Legal Services Ltd). Some firms combine speciality and location as with Kilbirnie Family Law and Auckland Property Law Services.

An appropriate first or last name can be useful. Peter Small set up The Small Law Firm Limited in Mt Albert, Auckland in 1995.

His well-designed website advises that “The Small Law Firm Ltd is big on service and low overheads means better value”.

Using his last name as both an identifier

There is definitely a trend towards shorter, more focused names

18

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

A good example of the evolution of law firm names comes in the rise of a leading Queenstown firm. Started by Alan Macalister as a branch of Southland firm Macalister Bros in 1975, it became Macalister Todd in 1983 when he was joined in partnership by Graeme Todd, and then Macalister Todd Phillips in 1985 when Kevin Phillips joined the practice. More partners joined in subsequent years and the firm now practises under the shorter title of MACTODD. University of Otago senior lecturer in marketing Tony Garry says greater competition and the “commodification” of legal advice have pushed many law firms into a much greater focus on marketing.

Dr Garry, who spent much time researching

and an attribute appears to work well. “I do think it helps people remember my name; it certainly raises a few chuckles,” says Mr Small.

In Wellington Tim Power delivers specialist public law and regulatory advice from Power Law. Alice Lawyers provides property law services from its offices in Mt Albert, Auckland. In a friendly touch, the firm avoids a surname and uses a first name – probably the only instance in the country.

“My Chinese name is a bit hard for English speakers to pronounce,” says the owner of the firm. “Alice is my English name. I like it, as I used to like the kids’ story Alice in Wonderland.

A well-established law firm name can be a real asset. Tauranga’s Sharp Tudhope New Zealand is a ‘wonder- has used that name since May 1911 and is also the city’s oldest business, having land’ for me to some extent. started in September 1896.

Also, a lot of clients know me as Alice: it is Ms Venables focused on thinking of a user-friendly and easy to remember.” name which said her firm was modern and Moving from factors delivered by nature approachable, but still professional. (as in location) or birth and inheritance “I had initially looked at clever Latin names (names), law firms which have opted to – like some of the firms in England and America create their own name tend to retain a strong – but then decided against it, as if I had to connection with the delivery of legal services explain it to my clients, it defeated the purpose. and to focus on life from a client’s viewpoint.

I am hoping to achieve a culture of proactive Rotorua lawyer Paula Lines bought legal advice – putting things in place before Rotorua Law Shop Limited, including the they become a problem, and that is where the original name, in 2008.

‘Solutions’ in the name comes from.”

“I kept the name because it is well known She says clients still feel intimidated in Rotorua, but also because it’s simple when approaching a law firm, especially if and tells people what we are,” she says.

“When someone is looking for a lawyer, I want them to know immediately that that is what we are. You can’t necessarily tell that from some firms.”

Ms Lines says there are a few downsides to the name: “We get confused with the Community Law Centre, some people think we sell legal “Law to your door” through Virtual Law: Law firm names are moving in new directions. textbooks, etc, and some people think we only have information which will then direct them to lawyers.” it’s the first time.

Karen Venables says when she was setting “I think the name has helped us gain up her New Plymouth law firm Legalsolunew-to-law clients. I also think my existing tions she researched trends in England and clients like that we have a modern brand. I America in relation to law firms. haven’t heard anything negative but that “I noticed that a lot of the newer firms may just not have filtered through to me.” were changing from traditional ‘Names’ to “And it is much easier for the receptionist!” non names. I also noticed that firms were says Ms Venables, touching on one of the changing from Smith, Smith and Jones to SSJ motivations behind development of another to try and give the firm a more modern feel.” innovative law firm name, The Law Lounge.

Located in Takapuna, this new firm features lounge furniture in its offices. Founder Greg Webster says he engaged brand specialist Al Best to help with ideas which expressed the philosophy behind his firm. “The Law Lounge” was one of a number of names which emerged.

“It was a bit risky, a bit out there, but the name kept coming back,” Mr Webster says.

One benefit he sees is that the brand is not just focused around himself: “It’s anyone who works for the Law Lounge.”

The name links with the real estate and property law services the firm provides, as everyone has a lounge in their home. It also promotes a feeling of easy access and a relaxed environment.

“It is supposed to give the idea that we are approachable and that we are a little bit more modern, Mr Webster says. “Younger clients love the name and we get more positive than negative feedback from our client base. It’s been quite fun having a name that’s different.”

Greg Webster also feels the name of his firm is more friendly to a growing e-generation which hunts for services through Google.

That mobile, always connected and always accessible feeling is captured by Virtual Law Ltd which promotes itself as an innovative boutique law firm which provides legal advice to clients “in their own homes or wherever it is more convenient”.

Principal Miriam Hollins says when she first adopted the name she received some inquiries from clients as to what a virtual law firm is.

“However, since then the word ‘virtual’ has become more commonplace with banking, etc, and clients have a clearer idea of what a virtual firm is. I don’t think the name itself has helped attract new clients but rather our offering of our mobile service which we advertise in our logo: Virtual Law – Law to your door.”

Developments in law firm names will be interesting to watch. However, like any business venture, the key to success or realisation of business objectives lies with meeting the needs of customers.

“When talking to lawyers I always remind them of the adage ‘you can’t change the plumbing by painting the toilet’,” says Tony Garry of Otago University.

“At the end of the day, legal advice is people-based, not product-based, and as a result it is usually about developing and maintaining long term relationships between individuals. As a result, customer care and quality of service result in word-of-mouth recommendations – usually the best form of marketing.”

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

19

Technology

Paperless jury trial

By Nathan Speir The concept of a paperless law office is well established. A simple Google search will reveal several New Zealand firms that have already transitioned to a paperless (or at least less-paper) practice.

The idea of going paperless in court however, especially in a jury trial, is not met with the same degree of acceptance.

For many lawyers, being asked to trade the parchment and pen for a PC would be like asking a builder to leave his hammer and nails at home. Perhaps it is because law is one of the last true professions and is steeped in tradition, or maybe we are just reluctant to move with the times. Whatever the reason, it is clear the issue polarises us.

Last month I set out to demonstrate that it was possible to go paperless in court, even before a jury.

I used PDF (scanned) versions of witness statements in place of the real thing, took a tablet computer to the lectern when addressing the jury and typed notes during the evidence of each witness. I did, however, have a physical copy of the file with me just in case.

This article records what worked for me, what didn’t, and what I would do differently in future. Before I get into that I should first say that my client was fully supportive of the idea before trial and is also happy for me to share the outcome with the readers of this article.

called Foxit Phantom PDF. It is an excellent program that allows one to create digital files just like physical versions, with easily accessible tabs so that several documents can be viewed at once.

Foxit is also great because it allows annotation of PDF documents. One can highlight words, add notes to documents, set bookmarks and even search for specific words or phrases in lengthy documents.

This feature was very useful when it came to reviewing the 200-plus pages of court transcript by the end of the trial. Each night I typed notes as I read through the transcript, which were easy to refer back to later.

The trial

The jury trial was a multi-accused assault case in the Manukau District Court. My client and another were charged with assault with a

the screen to zoom and scroll through my notes with the swipe of a finger.

During the evidence-in-chief of the Crown witnesses I tapped notes into Microsoft Word.

Then, when it came to cross-examine I detached the screen and had my tablet at the ready. It was easy to switch between my notes, various statements of witnesses and my client’s brief of evidence using the generous touch screen. In fact, I used the “split screen” function several times to compare what a witness had said in various statements to Police.

When it came to putting prior inconsistent statements to a witness I had to hand the physical document to the witness. In the future, a solution to this problem could be screens set into the bench in front of the witness, counsel, the judge and possibly even the jury. The setup is already being used by the Serious Fraud Office in trials and would enable everyone to refer to a document contemporaneously.

In closing the case to the jury, I spoke for almost an hour and had nothing with me but the tablet. It went without a hitch. The jury retired to consider their verdict, and after deliberating for more than four hours, both defendants were found not guilty of both charges.

I spoke for almost an hour and had nothing with me but the tablet

The tools

To complete the paperless jury trial I bought a new laptop, the HP ENVY X2, which turned out to be the perfect fit for the job. It is a laptop that doubles as a tablet (the touchable screen detaches). I also used my smartphone as a wireless “hot spot” and was therefore able to access all of my legal databases from court.

Fortunately I work for Rice Craig, an established suburban law firm in Auckland and therefore had access to a full copy/scan/ print setup, which made scanning documents to PDF quick and easy.

I needed a simple and efficient way to store and manage the scanned documents. I did some research and spoke to a few tech-savvy people who put me onto a software download

20

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

weapon and common assault. The two defendants were alleged to have assaulted a takeaway store owner in the early hours of the morning, causing him reasonably serious injuries.

In the weeks before the trial I arranged my digital file in a logical sequence: the first tier of folders included (a) Crown case; (b) defence case; (c) co-accused case; and (d) house-keeping documents. Within each folder I had various witness statements, Police notebook entries and job sheets as well as cross-examination plans and notes for jury addresses.

The Crown presented an indictment to the court and my client and his co-accused both pleaded not guilty to each of the charges.

The jury was empanelled and the Crown opened its case. When my opportunity came to address the jury I did so using the tablet at the lectern. I was able to “pinch and release”

Conclusions

Both the trial and the method used were ultimately a success. Some of the positive aspects of using technology in trial included: · being able to access all my documents from one source, safe in the knowledge that there was no chance I had left anything back in the office; · not having to transport bulky, clunky files and loose-leaf folders; · an easily accessible and efficient document management system; · the ability to search large documents (in particular the court transcript) for words and phrases that I knew had been said but couldn’t remember when; · being able to type notes quicker than I could write them (and be able to read them days later); and Continued on following page ...

Basic email security for lawyers

By Brad Booysen When we consider your legal practice as a business, it is worthwhile to consider the various aspects of the “product” sold to your clients. Obviously, the biggest part of the service we provide is our knowledge of case law and the traditions, procedures and customs of the legal system. One of the most important pieces of our product is confidentiality.

Professional privilege is more than a cherished tradition in the legal system.

Without some guarantee of confidentiality, the client will not have the confidence to reveal the full information to the lawyer that he/she will need for proper representation.

In many instances, the client cannot afford to provide certain information if that information could be compromised. Protection of the information goes beyond keeping it out of the hands of the opposition in a legal proceeding.

Some types of information can cause damage to a client should it become available to business competitors, the press or the general public.

The electronic revolution has made it much simpler for clients and lawyers to exchange information quickly and efficiently.

One of the most popular forms of electronic information exchange is email. Email is a fast and efficient way to communicate and share information, both through the text of the email and in attached documents.

Unfortunately, many of the protocols used by the popular email service providers are older than most hackers. Extracting information from an email account is a small challenge to most hackers, but there are simple steps that you can take to protect the

Continued from previous page ... · a progressive approach to a traditional process.

Of course using computers in the courtroom also presents some issues. There is the risk of computer meltdown, batteries running out, water spills and various other catastrophes.

Fortunately none of these things happened in my case and the experience was a good one.

information in your personal email accounts, as well as those related to your practice.

Disperse the threat

Small, spread out targets are less vulnerable to attack than a single large one. One reason email has become so popular is that there are so many ways to create free accounts. Take advantage of these free accounts. Compartmentalise information by creating a separate email account for each client or case. This may seem unwieldy for the lawyer handling several cases or clients, but most email reader programs, such as Outlook, Windows Live Mail and Thunderbird can be easily configured to check several accounts simultaneously.

There are ways to manage passwords, too. A simple solution is to use a passwordmanager product like 1Password, which stores multiple passwords in one central place, where it’s protected by a single master passcode. The benefit is that you only have to remember one password, instead of dozens.

Consider your exposure

Client information can be compromised as simply as someone reading a message over your shoulder on your smart phone.

Whenever you use a public computer, be sure to log out of your email account before walking away. Even better, if at all possible, close and restart the web browser before allowing the next user on the computer.

Employ basic internet hygiene

Many of us are lazy when it comes to setting passwords. We each have so many separate accounts it is understandably hard to keep track of them all, but that laziness works directly into the hands of hackers and information thieves.

It is also important to keep your office and home computers clean and free from malware. There are a number of both free and commercial malware blockers available.

Be sure you have the latest version installed and set to receive regular updates. This will keep away the malware that automatically steals your information.

Email is a useful tool for exchanging information, in part because it can be accessed anywhere there is a connection to the internet. This universal access also increases vulnerability to compromise.

Brad Booysen is the founder of Storkk, a New Zealand-based startup that’s helping lawyers move their practice to the cloud. He is passionate about technology and how it can transform the way we work and play.

I would encourage others to give paperless a go. There is no need to be afraid of using technology. It is a tool that can improve efficiency and is easy to use once you know how.

You can leave your heavy files, commentaries and paper diaries at home and use a laptop, tablet or smart phone to do the same job.

With the advent of E-bench it is clear the courts are looking to modernise the way in which they manage voluminous files. Without

doubt technology is coming to the courtroom in the near future and we as counsel should be prepared to adapt if we want to survive.

Nathan Speir is a civil and criminal litigation lawyer who has conducted jury trials for both the Crown and defence. He is employed by Rice Craig Barristers & Solicitors in Papakura, Auckland.

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

21

Law Reform Report

Process gaps and hurried passage criticised A government bill designed to enhance housing affordability contains a number of measures which are unclear and could cause procedural and interpretive problems, the New Zealand Law Society says. The Law Society has also criticised the hurried passage of the legislation, including the very limited timeframe of only 10 working days for consultation and making submissions.

“This bill will have very significant implications for Auckland – and potentially other regions – over the next three years. The rationale for using urgency is not clear,” the Law Society told Parliament’s Social Services Committee.

Presenting the Law Society submission on the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill to the committee, spokesperson Greg MilnerWhite said the Bill gives significant powers to the Minister of Housing and has major implications for local authorities. He noted the absence of a requirement for ministerial consultation in the clause which provided for Orders in Council made on the minister’s recommendation to establish a Special Housing Area (SHA).

“There is no requirement for the minister to consult with local authorities, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), or affected landowners, or any obligation to seek community input,” he said. “It seems unlikely the minister will be able to reach a properly informed view about whether sufficient and appropriate infrastructure will be provided, without consulting at least

the relevant local authorities and the NZTA and other affected parties.”

The Law Society submission also points to the limited requirements for notification of resource consent applications and plan changes or variations. Mr Milner-White said that where adverse effects of a proposal are more than minor, there should be an obligation (rather than a discretionary power) to notify parties.

A limited notification provision along the lines contained in the Resource Management Act 1991 would ensure that the views and submissions of directly affected parties would be considered by the consent authority. Similarly in plan change situations the requirement to notify only adjoining owners and NZTA did not go far enough.

Mr Milner-White said the Bill did not define “infrastructure” but the term was used in two important clauses and whether it was intended to extend to social infrastructure, such as schools, libraries and other community facilities, was unclear. He said it would be useful for the bill to define the term “infrastructure”.

It would also be useful to clarify who is responsible for the provision of infrastructure necessary to enable a qualifying development, including the attribution of the cost of wider network upgrades required as a result of qualifying developments.

While the term “qualifying developments”

Civil debt enforcement

Law Society questions proposed time allocations Proposed changes for new civil debt enforcement processes will promote fairness and consistency in cost allocation but the proposed time allocations appear very low, the Law Society says.

In comments on the Ministry of Justice’s proposed solicitors’ time allocations for new civil debt enforcement proceedings, the Law Society said while the new processes are simplified, it does not follow that the very limited time allocations are adequate.

“It may be possible to complete the new financial statement form in the allocated time, but we would question whether it is a realistic allocation for other steps, such as

22

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

an application for an attachment order or attendance at a financial assessment hearing,” it said. “We also have doubts about whether it would actually be possible to prepare and file an attachment order or an application to vary an attachment order in 24 minutes, even if the process has been simplified.”

Overall, the actual time required for most of the new steps would be at least double the time allocated in the consultation document.

“The Law Society finds it somewhat ironic that, after the full process undertaken to obtain a judgment, the time allocation for enforcement processes should be unrealistic.”

was defined, the first limb of the definition was that the development was “predominately residential”. That was likely to be a problematic term, and if left to be interpreted on a case by case basis, it could lead to inconsistent application of the legislation.

The Law Society was also unhappy with the wide regulation-making powers conferred by clause 88 of the Bill. “This is an example of a Henry VIII clause in that it enables primary legislation to be amended by executive regulation,” Mr Milner-White said.

“Devolution of powers to the Executive to amend or override an Act of Parliament is contrary to the rule of law and good legislation principles. Such clauses have also been criticised by the Cabinet Manual and Parliament’s own Regulations Review Committee. The Law Society submits that clause 88 is undesirable and should be removed.”

The Law Society recently filed submissions on: · Auditing and assurance requirements for large and medium registered charities – concrete proposals paper; · Proposed solicitors’ time allocations for new civil debt enforcement proceedings (District Court Rules); · Tax PUB0195: ED Public Ruling – Standard Project Agreement for a Public-Private Partnership; · Targeting serious crime: A government discussion document about the sharing of tax information to prevent serious crime; · Review of the Prudential Regime for Non-bank Deposit Takers; · Environment Court Consultation Draft Practice Direction: Mediations and Other ADR; · Exposure Draft – Land Transfer Bill; · Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill; and · The taxation of land-related lease payments.

The submissions are available at www.lawsociety.org.nz/ publications-and-submissions/ submissions

The Bookshelf B O O K O F T H E M O NT H

The Law and Practice of Charities in New Zealand Susan Barker, Michael Gousmett and Ken Lord

This new title examines New Zealand charities law and provides guidance to lawyers and accountants who are involved in setting up, administering and acting for charities. It looks at the recent changes in the charitable sector with the establishment of the Charities Commission in 2005 and the subsequent High Court decisions. Information on charities law in other jurisdictions is included along with a look at charities and anti-money laundering. LexisNexis NZ Ltd, May 2013, 978-1-927183-37-3, 739 pages, paperback and e-book, $149.50 (GST included, p&h excluded).

Guide to Competition Law

BY LINDSAY HAMPTON AND PAUL SCOTT This is a revised reprint of Lindsay Hampton’s competition law commentary in the looseleaf publication Commercial Law in New Zealand. A chapter on merger control has been added, authored by Paul Scott.

The law is stated as at 28 February 2013.

LexisNexis NZ Ltd, May 2013, 978-1-92722703-9, 345 pages, paperback and e-book, $92.00 (GST included, p&h excluded).

Law of Societies, 3rd Edition

BY MARK VON DADELSZEN

The book explains the legislative framework within which societies – incorporated, unincorporated and charitable – and charitable trusts operate.

The plain English style is accessible to New Zealanders involved in establishing and running societies. The law is stated as at 1 February 2013. The second edition was published in 2009.

LexisNexis NZ Ltd, May 2013, 978-1-92718359-5, 310 pages, paperback and e-book, $138.00 (GST included, p&h excluded).

The Law of Torts in New Zealand, 6th Edition

BY STEPHEN TODD (GENERAL EDITOR), JOHN BURROWS, BILL ATKIN, CYNTHIA HAWES AND URSULA CHEER Now well-established since it was first published in 1991, this provides a comprehensive

coverage of New Zealand tort law, its rules and principles and the policies underlying the law. The last edition was published in 2009 and the law is stated as at 1 January 2013.

Brookers Ltd, May 2013, 978-0-864727-90-9, 1,485 pages, paperback, $190.00 (GST and p&h excluded).

International Surrogacy Arrangements EDITED BY KATARINA TRIMMINGS AND PAUL BEAUMONT

Reports on domestic approaches to surrogacy in 24 jurisdictions (including New Zealand) are used by the editors to prepare a proposed model of regulation of international surrogacy arrangements at the international level. The editors say this aims to address the pressing challenges presented by the proliferation of international surrogacy arrangements.

Hart Publishing, May 2013, 978-1-84946280-8, 588 pages, hardback, £65.00.

Awards recognise legal essays Prizewinners of the Legal Research Foundation’s annual awards for legal papers and essays were announced at the Foundation AGM in Auckland in May. The prizes are for publication in 2012.

Hamish McQueen, a judge’s clerk at the Court of Appeal, won the Sir Ian Barker Published Article Award for his paper The Peculiar Evil of Silencing Expression: the Relationship between Charity and Politics in New Zealand (2012) 25 NZULR 124.

The Unpublished Post-Graduate Student

Janet McLean wins top legal book award Professor Janet McLean of Auckland University has won the JF Northey Memorial Book Award for the best legal text by a New Zealand-based author (or authors) in 2012. Established in 1983, the award is a cash prize of $2,000 made each year by the Legal Research Foundation. Professor McLean’s book Searching for the State in British Legal Thought was published by Cambridge University Press and written by her while she was a Professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland.

Cambridge University Press says the book is an exploration of how the common law has personified the state and how those personifications affect and reflect the state’s relationship to bureaucracy, sovereignty and civil society, the development of public law norms, the expansion and contraction of the public sphere with nationalisation and privatisation, state responsibility and human rights.

Paper Award was won by Auckland University PhD candidate Edward Willis. Mr Willis is a senior solicitor with Auckland firm Webb Henderson and won the award for his paper Limits on Constitutional Authority.

The Unpublished Undergraduate Student Paper Award was won jointly by Otago University law students Stephen Thomson and William Cheyne. Mr Thomson’s paper was entitled Protecting Legitimate Speech Online: Does the Net Work? and Mr Cheyne’s paper was entitled Is the Thief a Trustee?

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

23

Anti Money Laundering

New obligations affect lawyers

By Ron Pol Many law firms and accounting practices are temporarily exempt from new anti-money laundering legislation which comes into force on 30 June 2013, but some may be affected before the exemption expires, possibly as early as 2014.

More than $1.5 billion of criminal funds is conservatively estimated to be laundered through New Zealand businesses every year, and by some estimates may be as high as $10 billion. Our involvement in terrorist financing is a lower risk. However, the Prime Minister – responsible for the intelligence agencies – has acknowledged local funding links to overseas terror groups. Money laundering and terrorist financing are global issues that present serious threats to New Zealand’s economy and international reputation.

The Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 is a key component in closing gaps identified in international evaluations of New Zealand’s regulatory environment. New risk assessment, customer due diligence, identity verification, compliance, monitoring, reporting and audit obligations will start building capabilities towards matching our international trading partners. The first tranche, from 30 June, applies mostly to banks and other financial institutions.

Specified non-financial businesses, including lawyers and accountants, are generally exempt until the second tranche, expected to be finalised in 2014. However, many of these firms may be affected earlier through their interaction with banks and other financial institutions. Those with structures and operations not covered by the temporary exemption may also be affected.

Lawyers affected from outset

Deep within the regulations is a seemingly innocuous indicator in which “exempt” professional services firms may be affected earlier than generally expected.

The regulations enable banks to ask firms with trust accounts in effect to underwrite the veracity of much of their client base. If

24

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

banks obtain written agreements for firms to produce on request details of clients whose funds are held in trust accounts, and verification, banks needn’t conduct their own due diligence. In effect, professional services firms will have done it for them.

Firms that choose not to underwrite banks’ risks in this area may face a difficult election or pressure to conform. Declining to provide blanket warranties may slow transactions if banks need to undertake their own due diligence. In a competitive environment pressure may grow as other firms’ clients experience more streamlined service.

Banks dealing with lawyers acting as trustees or agents may also seek detailed information on the identity of beneficiaries and clients in order to meet banks’ due diligence requirements.

Some may not be exempt after all

A wide definition of “financial institution” includes a range of activities often carried out by professional services firms, including: · accepting deposits or other repayable funds; · investing, administering or managing funds or money on behalf of another person; and · transferring money or value for or on behalf of a client.

Most firms operating trust accounts will be included within the definition of “financial institution” which usually triggers becoming a “reporting entity” covered by the Act from 30 June 2013.

The blanket temporary exemption should, however, exclude specified firms that carry out these financial activities. This so-called “sanctioned loophole” may also extend to exempt the relatively few lawyers and accountants carrying out certain financial activities typically conducted by banks and other financiers; even though other providers of those services will be included from 30 June.

However, lawyers and accountants sometimes carry out services through separate entities. Solicitor nominee companies are an obvious example. Separate entities wholly or in some cases partly owned or operated by firms may also deliver services to the firm’s clients, for example company and trust formation and administration, and estate and tax planning services.

In these circumstances, the primary business

may be exempt, but the separate entity – not itself an exempt law or accounting firm – might not be.

Last minute amendments to the regulations as this article was finalised – adding exemptions for online auctions and certain estate administration services – also widens the exemption for professional services firms. The new regulation extends the exemption to directors, employees and others acting in the course of and for the purposes of exempt firms. It may have been intended also to stretch the exemption across those businesses’ separate entities – even though other businesses offering such services aren’t exempt – yet the regulation is unclear; it refers to specified people in the exempt business.

Reality may trump uncertainty

If lawyers are covered by the Act, the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is the default supervising regulator, already responsible for around 800 reporting entities from a wide range of businesses, including “other”

What is Money Laundering?

M

oney laundering is not confined to overseas funds, or criminals. It involves legitimate businesses, including socalled “gatekeeper” professionals such as lawyers, accountants and real estate agents who facilitate financial transactions. Money laundering is a three-stage process which obscures the true ownership of criminal proceeds: · Placement introduces criminal funds into the financial system. · Layering involves apparently legitimate business activity such as transfers, loans and invoices. · Integration includes buying assets and investments.

The integration of funds into the mainstream economy completes the process, but the reality is that seemingly legitimate enterprises continue their commercial activities; and it becomes more difficult to identify the true source of funds. Legitimate businesses are involved at every stage, and recent trends towards more sophisticated transactions increasingly require the services of lawyers and accountants.

businesses not supervised by the Reserve Bank or Financial Markets Authority.

Early indications suggest that DIA may be as unprepared to supervise lawyers and accountants as these businesses themselves may be surprised that some elements of their operations could technically be covered by the Act from 30 June. Amid a deluge of guidelines, there are none for these firms, nor has any law or accounting firm been listed as anticipated “reporting entities”.

It has been suggested that DIA and FMA are so overwhelmed by the reporting entities they know about that at least one has reportedly told some businesses who think they might technically be covered that they’re not really intended to be included just yet, despite what the regulations seem to indicate.

DIA may choose to work with some firms on a case-by-case basis, but if these reports are correct it reflects the enormous pressure that supervisors are working under.

A “pragmatic” outcome also has precedent for lawyers. Like New Zealand, Australia adopted a two-tranche approach aimed initially at financial institutions. When the Law Council of Australia observed that the regulations seemingly included ordinary trust account activity, a flurry of negotiations resulted in lawyers exempted from one limb of the definition. In relation to other elements (similar to New Zealand’s) the Law Council advised lawyers that they were “legally required to report but it is not [the regulator’s] expectation that they will”.

Lawyers could also seek a “no action” letter directly from the regulator itself.

Likewise in New Zealand, lawyers have approached the supervisors to clarify the extent of the exemption; seeking to give effect to what is said to be the government’s intention to exclude them from the first tranche of reforms. The last minute regulatory amendment may have that effect, but may need to be clarified.

Overseas experience

In other jurisdictions, there has been considerable dialogue over whether the existing regulatory functions and deep understanding of their professions suggests that lawyers’ and accountants’ own regulatory bodies may be more effective supervisors than government agencies; a range of different “co-regulatory” outcomes have emerged.

Questions have also been raised about balancing government action protecting public interest against the traditional concept of lawyer self-regulation and independence.

The obligation to report suspicious transactions has also generated heated arguments

This article does not represent the views of the New Zealand Law Society. It represents the view of its author, Ron Pol. It is important to note that while lawyers and law firms will generally be exempt from the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009, lawyers will still need to know about the regime in order to (among other things):

about the apparent abrogation of lawyer-client confidentiality. These debates have had mixed results overseas, affording many lessons for New Zealand leaders keen to forge a workable path. The extensive debates have typically also resulted in a series of delays and changes; to legislation, regulations, regulatory structures and professional codes of conduct.

This process has barely begun in New Zealand. The situation for lawyers and accountants remains uncertain, and potentially fluid for some time.

Opportunity or threat?

The situation is more starkly defined for those delivering trust and company services. Originally excluded from the first tranche, trust and company service providers were later included when identified as having high levels of money laundering and terrorist financing risk.

These services are also provided by many lawyers and accountants, yet most of these firms (except perhaps those delivering services via separate entities) remain exempt until the second tranche. Some firms may regard exemption a competitive advantage; an opportunity to boost business as their specialist competitors face greater compliance obligations, costs and scrutiny.

Others may regard exemption a poisoned chalice. An unintended consequence of excluding some businesses may create substitution pressure on lawyers and accountants to provide more of these services. In most cases, this will be an innocent and welcome revenue boost. Yet business and reputational risks will increase if New Zealand lawyers and accountants become perceived as some of the last global outliers without the knowledge, resources or tools adequately to identify or assess whether their businesses are inadvertently being used to facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing.

Some exempt businesses may choose – for reasons of prudence, best practice, reputation or competitive advantage – to begin incorporating some of the capabilities that are becoming standard New Zealand business practice.

Financial businesses must now comply in the full glare of regulatory oversight. Exempt businesses have the benefit of a brief window of opportunity to build AML-CFT awareness,

· advise clients about AML/CFT matters; · deal effectively with banks and other reporting entities: · comply with other associated legislation that may apply (such as the Financial Transactions Reporting Act 1996); · start preparing for the time when they will not be exempt.

expand operational capabilities, and address any hidden surprises before mandatory reporting and regulatory supervision applies to their operations, possibly as early as late 2014.

Ron Pol, an experienced New Zealand lawyer and legal consultant, is a member of the international Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists, and can be contacted at ronald.pol@teamfactors.com.

Trust accounts in money launderers’ sights A combination of factors – including traditional money laundering routes such as banks and casinos blocked, the ability to transfer money instantaneously, a “substitution effect” from specialist trust and company services providers covered by the Act towards lawyers and accountants not covered, conventional trust account procedures and audit processes that don’t examine the source of funds, and ironically the credibility afforded by trust accounts – mean that the trust account is fast becoming an “alluring prospect” for money launderers, according to legal researchers (Cave Pecuniam: Lawyers as Launderers by AJ Hamman and RA Koen, PER/PELJ 2012 (15) (5)).

They have described the modern trust account as “akin to a one-stop laundromat: money goes in dirty on one side, wends its way through an unbroken cleaning cycle and emerges spotless on the other”. Even without firms’ knowledge or participation, trust accounts “conceived as the beacon of unblemished integrity” can become “the vehicle of squalid criminality” in a bewildering number of ways.

This heralds new challenges for professionals “who now have to negotiate the dangers posed to the integrity of their practices by the new forms of money laundering” whether or not their businesses are temporarily exempt from anti-money laundering legislation.

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

25

From the Ministry

Working together to make new criminal procedures a success

By Andrew Bridgman The Ministry of Justice is making significant changes to improve the quality and speed of our services to New Zealanders. Justice is critically important and how people experience it, especially through the court system, is equally so.

Of course delivering improved court services isn’t just an issue for the ministry. We need the support of the judiciary and we need your help. The New Zealand Law Society recognises this and we have been working really well together to prepare the profession for the changes brought about by the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 this year.

The current system could work a lot better for people. It currently takes more than a year for a trial to progress through the District Courts. This is too slow for victims, witnesses, defendants and families waiting to get out of the system and on with their lives. Reducing unnecessary delay is the most important thing we can do for these people.

The need to modernise New Zealand’s outdated criminal procedures and reduce delay was recognised by the Law Commission years ago and measures to do so received near unanimous support of Parliament in 2011.

The end result is the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which comes into force next month.

The Act is designed to simplify, streamline and speed up court processes. The changes will benefit the people who are involved in the criminal justice system through no fault of their own, while maintaining defendants’ fundamental rights to a fair trial.

The Act itself will change much about how we previously operated. But some of the key benefits will come from the more collaborative ways of working incentivised by the Act. While we have different roles to play, collectively we are accountable for how the court system works and how people

counsel are large. I also accept there may be issues to sort through as we all get used to the new ways of working. That’s why the ministry is focused on helping everyone who will have to do things differently get ready for the change.

We’ve been doing this with the New Zealand Law Society and I sit on the Modernising Courts Advisory Group alongside Jonathan Temm, the Chief District Court Judge, the Vice-President of the Criminal Bar Association and my counterparts from Police, Corrections and Crown Law; all of us committed to ensuring the Criminal Procedure Act changes are implemented successfully.

For defence counsel the ministry contributed $50,000 towards the Law Society’s CLE one-day intensives that ran in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin late last month and we have put on additional seminars from Public Defence Service in the smaller centres. We are making a wide range of information available before, during and after the changes take effect and are turning the ministry’s website into a one-stop-shop for information, forms and applications.

I hope you find these measures useful and I encourage you to take up the assistance offered by the ministry and the Law Society. While we may have different views about some things, we are all committed to the same principles of justice; we all want the courts and law to work as best possible; and we all want the July 1 changes to be successful.

The changes will benefit the people who are involved in the criminal justice system through no fault of their own, while maintaining defendants’ fundamental rights to a fair trial

Changes to civil fees The Government has announced changes to fees for civil court and tribunal services. They were set following a comprehensive review – undertaken by the Ministry of Justice to set civil fees in a principled, consistent and

26

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

experience it. This isn’t just about speed, but should certainly mean that unnecessary delay does not occur and where appropriate we work together to ensure it doesn’t.

For defence counsel this means a different way of working to progress far more matters outside of the courtroom with the prosecution – resolving or clarifying issues between you as early as possible – and active case management.

I appreciate that the changes for defence

equitable basis – and public consultation. The fees are designed to protect access to justice while ensuring those who benefit from the courts contribute to their costs.

The changes involve new fees, fee increases, some fee reductions, fee rounding and a new pre-payment hearing fee system for the District Courts, High Court and Court of Appeal. Most of the changes come into effect on 1 July and relate to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, District Courts, Māori Appellate

Andrew Bridgman is the Secretary for Justice and the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Justice.

Court, Māori Land Court, Disputes Tribunal and eight other tribunals.

Civil enforcement fees in the District Courts are likely to take effect later in 2013 as they depend on changes to the District Courts Rules coming into effect first. Fee changes which depend on amendments to legislation – including those relating to the Employment Court, Environment Court and four tribunals – are likely to come into effect in 2014. More information is at www.justice.govt.nz.

From the Courts

Under the Spotlight

Residential care subsidy and gifting Jonathan Scragg and Polly Higbee discuss a recent High Court case concerning historic gifting that may affect eligibility for the residential care subsidy.

The High Court recently confirmed that for the purposes of means testing for the Ministry of Social Development’s residential care subsidy, the relevant threshold for gifts made before the five-year gifting period applies to the combined gifting of the applicant and his/her spouse or partner (B v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2012] NZHC 3165 (B v MSD)).

The decision will be of interest to lawyers, particularly those who advise clients on trust gifting programmes and eligibility for the residential care subsidy.

Residential care subsidy

Eligibility for the residential care subsidy is determined on the basis of a means assessment which considers both an applicant’s assets and income. An application will be declined if the applicant’s assets exceed certain prescribed thresholds.

The assessment of assets includes consideration of whether gifts have been made to a trust in excess of prescribed thresholds.

For the five-year period up to the date of the assessment, the annual threshold for gifting is $6,000. For the period before the five-year gifting period (historic gifting), the annual threshold is $27,000. Gifting in excess of $27,000 per year may be considered “deprivation”, in which case the ministry may conduct the means assessment as if the deprivation has not occurred (s147A of the Social Security Act 1964 (Act)).

B v MSD

The issue for the High Court in B v MSD was whether the $27,000 annual threshold for historic gifting applied to gifting only by the applicant, Mrs B, or whether the $27,000 threshold applied to the total combined gifting of Mrs B and her husband, Mr B. In 1987 Mr and Mrs B established a family trust. The trust purchased various assets which resulted in debts to Mr and Mrs B. From 1987 to 2004 Mr and Mrs B each made annual gifts to the trust of $27,000

in forgiveness of the debts. In 2009 Mrs B applied for the residential care subsidy. The ministry undertook a means assessment and concluded there had been deprivation because of the historic annual combined $54,000 gifting of Mr and Mrs B. Mrs B appealed the decision (which had been upheld by the Benefits Review Committee) to the Social Security Appeal Authority.

The authority dismissed the appeal. The case proceeded to the High Court as a “case stated” appeal.

Justice Collins found that the $27,000 threshold for historic gifting applied to the combined annual gifting of Mr and Mrs B. In particular, Justice Collins determined that regulation 9B(a) of the Social Security (Long-Term Residential Care) Regulations 2005 (regulations) was to be interpreted consistently with s147A of the Act. As s147A refers to deprivation by an applicant or his or her spouse or partner, the court found the figure of $27,000 in regulation 9B(a) must refer to the “aggregated values of gifts made by the applicant and his or her spouse or partner”.

Justice Collins rejected an argument that the $27,000 threshold in regulation 9B(a) was intended to mirror the threshold that had applied under the former gift duty regime, and therefore should be applied as “per person” and not “per couple”. The argument was rejected notwithstanding reference to various Cabinet documents, accepted by the court as extrinsic aids to the interpretation of the regulations, which indicated the $27,000 threshold in regulation 9B(a) was a guideline based on the gifting provisions previously used in respect of the imposition of gift duty. The court also rejected an argument based on preference being given to an interpretation of regulation 9B(a) that was consistent with the rights contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Implications

year to family trusts has been widespread and has continued despite the abolition of gift duty. No doubt this has, at least in part, been on the basis of the profession’s understanding of the ministry’s approach to the treatment of the gifting thresholds within the means assessment process.

The result of the High Court’s decision is that many people who have undertaken a gifting programme to a family trust may now unexpectedly find themselves ineligible for the residential care subsidy. This will come as an unwelcome shock to many. It will also likely cause many members of the profession concern at the prospect of claims from disgruntled clients for previous advice on gifting programmes.

B v MSD is under appeal to the Court of Appeal. A hearing is scheduled for August 2013. Until the outcome of the appeal is known the legal position remains uncertain.

Lawyers may wish to consider whether there is a need to notify professional indemnity insurers in respect of the risk of potential claims for previous gifting advice.

Some brokers are encouraging practitioners to notify insurers of the risk of potential claims. Practitioners are encouraged to check their particular circumstances with their broker/insurer.

Lawyers advising clients on current gifting programmes will want to consider what level of gifting is appropriate in the light of the High Court’s decision. Every client’s circumstances will be different and will require individual consideration.

Jonathan Scragg and Polly Higbee of Duncan Cotterill appeared as counsel for Mrs B in the High Court, together with Ilsaad Razak of Smith & Partners, Auckland. Practitioners with questions or comments about the case and its implications can email j.scragg@duncancotterill. com or peter.smith@smithpartners.co.nz.

The practice of gifting $27,000 per person (and accordingly $54,000 per couple) per LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

27

Professional Indemnity

Claims Reserving

By Damian Schade

assessment to determine the financial stabildate with costs and what actions insurers ity of insurers includes capital adequacy and and/or their counsel are taking with your What does it really liquidity, which relies on insurers being able claim. As a possible defendant, you play a mean when an insurer to show expected claims are accounted for part in keeping your brokers and insurers loads a dollar figure in the pricing of premiums. informed of any changes or further inforagainst a notification or Liability claims can have a life of their mation provided by the plaintiff or other claim you have recently own and there is not always a direct road to interested parties. made? Why do they do determination of liability. It may take years If at any time you do not understand it and what are the confor a notified circumstance to reach a final what is happening with your claim or require sequences at renewal? determination, whether that be by way of clarification of the process or progress made, You may have experienced a reserve appearmediated settlement, court decision, the you should address this directly with your ing on your insurer’s claims card and you may matter running its course or possibly even broker as it is their role to assist you through not have had any indication that the claim in a finding that the claim has no merit at all. the claims process in conjunction with the question has progressed to a point where the In all of these cases the insurers are likely appointed counsel. insurers had paid anything or were likely to to incur some costs which are set against settle the claim. Please keep in mind that a the claim and have to be accounted for at Damian Schade is Managing Principal, Assistant reserve does not necessarily mean anything has renewal and assessment of your risk.

Vice-President and Solicitors Practice Leader been paid or that the claim has been resolved.

A contract of insurance provides for your at Marsh. Damian advises professional firms Reserving is, if you like, a budgeting tool insurer to take over the conduct of a claim on all areas of risk management and liability for insurers. They need to be able to pay you notify to them. The outcome of the insurance. damian.schade@marsh.com. claims as they fall due and therefore need claim may impact on to ensure they hold sufficient capital to your future ability meet their potential obligations. They do to obtain insurance this through raising reserves. or may impact on This can be done directly by insurers renewal terms and based on the facts they have to hand at conditions. As such, the time you notify a claim or can be based you should be fully on recommendations from legal counsel appraised of the appointed to handle the claim on the insurer’s position so you do ”It’s not avoiding the bad days behalf. The insurers will make a judgement not have any surthat matters. It’s learning how based on advice as to what they believe their prises when it comes to make them better.” potential loss will be. time for renewal.

The Reserve Bank governs insurers’ Communication College of Law New Zealand solvency and seeks to ensure the financial is the key and you is offering a half day programme strength of New Zealand insurers. Their need to keep up to called ‘Understanding Resilience’ which addresses mental health issues in the workplace and Professional forensic accounting services provides strategies to assist in civil and commercial matters. management and staff.

Understanding resilience

If you are interested in knowing more about this programme, please call Marcus Martin, Executive Director on (09) 300 1799 or email mmartin@collaw.ac.nz.

Expertise I Experience I Independence Paul Moriarty Level 27, PwC Tower, 188 Quay Street, Auckland 1010 P:09 363 3700 M:022 107 5787 E: paul@moriartyassociates.co.nz www.moriartyassociates.co.nz

28

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

Visit collaw.ac.nz

Branch News Hawke’s Bay

New President

Carol Hall was elected President of the Hawke’s Bay branch at its annual meeting on 30 May. Carol succeeds Jonathan Krebs.

A senior associate of the Napier firm Carlile Dowling Lawyers, Carol has practised law in both the United States and New Zealand.

Foremost among her experience is seven years with the United States Congress as legislative counsel for the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.

After her admission to the Ohio Bar of the Supreme Court in 1979, Carol worked for the Ohio State Government. She also served with the US Peace Corps as a volunteer in Costa Rica and holds a B Sc in Special Education.

Carol came to New Zealand in 1990 and, after a break from the law, was admitted here in 1997. She then joined A J Gallagher Solicitors in Napier before moving to Carlile Dowling in 1999.

Carol specialises in immigration, debt collection and insolvency litigation.

The Hawke’s Bay branch Council for 2013-14 is Claire Enticott, Satchie Govender, Maria Hamilton, Nigel Loughnan, Graeme Mansfield, Alison Souness and William Story.

Nelson

President re-elected

Family lawyer Michelle Duggan was re-elected the Nelson branch President at the branch’s annual meeting on 30 May. After practising in Wellington for 15 years, largely in the area of family law, Michelle moved to Nelson in 2005. She continues to work as a sole practitioner.

Her previous work history includes working for a firm in Lower Hutt before teaching professional studies at the Institute of Professional Legal Studies. Michelle is a Child Support Review Officer and a member of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Before “taking her turn” as President of the Nelson branch, Michelle was the Vice-President.

Being President will mean she will be kept up-to-date on Law Society issues as well as the

myriad of issues facing, in particular, lawyers doing legal aid work. Another goal is to foster more active participation in the activities of the Nelson branch of the NZLS and encourage greater collegiality within the branch members.

Rob Somerville was re-elected for another term as branch Vice-President. The Council members for 2013-14 are: Gerard Praat, Dean Russ, Michael Vesty, Anissa Bain, Maree Kirk, Andrew Shaw, David Holloway, Alex Reith, Graeme Downing and Antoinette Besier.

At the branch Council following the annual meeting, 28 practitioners attended – somewhat of a record, especially given there were no “issues” for consideration.

There was some discussion on the new CPD process. The formation of a young lawyers’ group was also discussed, with interest in the proposal from many present.

Minister for Courts visiting

The Minister for Courts, Chester Borrows, held two meetings with branch lawyers on 17 June.

The first was with Rotorua lawyers at the Rotorua District Court at 1pm and the second was with Tauranga lawyers at the Tauranga District Court at 5pm.

Graduation ceremony

The 2013 ceremony for legal executives who graduated from the 2012 New Zealand Law Society Legal Executive Diploma course was held at the branch office at 3:30pm on 19 June.

Canterbury-Westland

Wellington

Beatrice Mtetwa film

Waikato Bay of Plenty

Awkward Advocacy

The Wellington branch Human Rights Committee and the Wellington branch of the NZ Bar Association have organised a screening of a film about Beatrice Mtetwa.

The screening will be held on 9 July at The Paramount, Courtenay Place. Following a mix and mingle at 5:30pm, the film will screen at 6pm. A prominent human rights lawyer in Zimbabwe Ms Mtetwa has, in spite of beatings by police, courageously defended in court those jailed by the Mugabe government.

Ben Paradza, a former Zimbabwean High Court Judge, will introduce the film and will answer questions from the audience.

The $25 cost includes finger food. There will be a cash bar and any profit from the evening will be donated to the makers of the film. To book, go to bookwhen.com/wellington-branch.

A lunchtime seminar, entitled Awkward Advocacy will be held from 1 to 2pm on 26 June.

Presented by Marcus Elliott, the seminar will focus on ethical obligations and client interests, which can sometimes collide.

It will explore the question: how can a lawyer reconcile competing obligations when advising a client about litigation, drafting pleadings, cross-examining witnesses and making submissions?

The seminar will be held at Anthony Harper Law, level 9 HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard. Registrations are limited to 50, and people wanting to attend need to register

by Monday 24 to val.mcturk@lawsociety.org.nz or fax to (03) 366 9977.

JUSTITIA

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

29

CPD CalenDar Programme

Presenters

Content

Where

Commercial law intensive

Chair: Geof Shirtcliffe

For lawyers advising on commercial transactions, this day is a must. Chaired by Wellington Geof Shirtcliffe, the intensive includes sessions on: personal liability for commercial Auckland dealings, commercial insurance, the Financial Markets Conduct Bill and raising capital, the latest developments from the OIO, consumer law reforms, AML/CFT compliance requirements and a case law update.

When

CommerCial/ComPany 27 Jun 28 Jun

Criminal Criminal Procedure act: The essentials Parts 1 & 2

Part 1: Sandy Biagent Mark Lillico Part 2: Jonathan Krebs

How to run a Jury Trial

Philip Hall Craig Ruane

The Criminal Procedure Act commences in its totality on 1 July. It is the greatest change to criminal law in over 50 years. Over 650 lawyers attended the recent, well received, intensive on it, but many missed out. This 2 part webinar picks the eyes out of that intensive in order to help every criminal lawyer get up to speed before 1 July.

Webinar

Part 1: 17 Jun Part 2: 25 Jun

Crown Solicitor Network

Working in groups you will follow step-by-step the practical aspects of preparing for Christchurch and conducting a jury trial. You will be challenged to examine why, when and how Wellington you tackle the various stages involved. You will understand how to prepare for and Auckland conduct a jury trial. You will learn how to organise case materials, prepare for the different stages, and how to recognise and evaluate the various options available.

6 Aug 7 Aug 8 Aug

Duty Solicitor Training Programme

Centre

Intro

Asssessment

Practice Court

Duty solicitors are critical to the smooth running of a District Court list.

Here is a way to gain more of the knowledge and skills you need to join this important group. You will: • complete pre-course reading on the key tasks of a duty solicitor • learn about penalties, tariffs and sentencing options • observe experienced duty solicitors (5 x ½ days) • develop your advising skills by working through a series of realistic scenarios • sit an open book examination • practise and improve your advocacy skills • make critiqued appearances as a duty solicitor at a practice court • be observed and assessed while appearing as a duty solicitor (a full day)

Hamilton Tauranga Rotorua Dunedin Invercargill Wellington Whanganui Hawkes Bay New Plymouth Palmerston North Manukau Whangarei

19 July 19 July 19 July (noon) 2 August 2 August 16 August 9 August 16 August 16 August 16 August 13 September 13 September

23 August 23 August (in Ham) 23 August (in Ham) 6 September 6 September (in Dun) 27 September 27 September (in Wgtn) 27 September (in Wgtn) 27 September (in Wgtn) 27 September (in Wgtn) 18 October 18 October (in Mnku)

24 August 24 August (in Ham) 24 August (in Ham) 7 September 7 September (in Dun) 28 September 28 September (in Wgtn) 28 September (in Wgtn) 28 September (in Wgtn) 28 September (in Wgtn) 19 October 19 October (in Mnku)

ProPerTy residential Property Transactions

Dedra Dorrington Simon Ellis Nick Kerney Duncan Terris

This very popular two-day, limited-number workshop, for solicitors at the start of Wellington their property law career and legal executives with some experience, follows three Christchurch Auckland files from client instructions to settlement and beyond.

Hamilton

1-2 Jul 8-9 Jul 29-30 Jul 5-6 Aug

General lawyer as negotiator

Jane Chart

Building on your own experience, this one and a half day workshop provides hands- Wellington 2 on practice and feedback, as well as a conceptual framework for preparing for and Auckland 2 undertaking negotiations. It examines different strategies and tactics, and offers tools for dealing with difficult negotiators, breaking impasses, and for addressing specific issues which you might wish to raise.

12-13 Nov 19-20 Nov

Serects of Success

Irene Joyce

Understand the factors which make small to medium size firms successful, Wellington analysis how well your firm measures up and how to start implementing changes Hamilton Auckland to improve your firms success.

25 Jun 27 Jun 2 Jul

Stepping Up foundation for practising on own account

Director: John Mackintosh

All lawyers wishing to practise on their own account whether alone, in partnership, Auckland 2 in an incorporated practice or as a barrister, will be required to complete this Wellington course. (Note: From 1 October 2012 all lawyers applying to be barristers sole are required to complete Stepping Up). Developed with the support of the New Zealand Law Foundation.

29-31 Aug 7-9 Aug

Brochures for CLE programmes are distributed with LawTalk. If you have not received a brochure for any of the programmes listed, please see www.lawyerseducation.co.nz or email cle@lawyerseducation.co.nz or contact CLE information, tel 0800 333 111.

30

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

Online registration and payment can be made at www.lawyerseducation.co.nz

Programme

Presenters

Content

Where

When

Trust account Supervisor Training Programme

Mark Anderson David Littlefair and David Chapman Bob Eades or Lindsay Lloyd

To qualify as a trust account supervisor, you must complete 40-55 hours’ preparation, attend Hamilton the assessment day and pass all assessments. make sure you register in time to do the Wellington preparatory work before the assessment day as listed on the right.

Auckland 2 Christchurch

10 Jul 18 Sep 20 Nov 27 Nov

legal executives Conference

NZILE President: Pam Harliwich

Webinar Legal executives – build on existing skills and knowledge and keep abreast of what is Wellington happening in other areas of practice – trusts, estate administration, unit titles, mortgagee sales, settlement issues, conflict of interest, Maori land, purchase of a business, LINZ update, LTA update, LinkedIn and Twitter for business development. And more!

19-20 Aug

General

2013 PUBliCaTionS

Book Title

authors

introduction to Company law 2013

Various

Creditors’ remedies

David Friar and Rachel Pinny

Criminal Procedure act

Various

life after the Split – post-separation events

Prof Bill Atkin

Public Sector Governance

Various

Trust and relationship Property for Family lawyers

Vanessa Bruton and Isaac Hikaka

Children’s interests Under the Pra ra & s 182 FP FPa a

Prof Nicola Peart

Privacy law – where are we now?

John Edwards and Dr Paul Roth

Drafting Better Court Documents

David Goddard QC

Not-For-Profit – changes and challenges

Mark von Dadelszen

Trust account administrators manual

Various

Unit Titles

Various

equitable remedies

Dr Andrew Butler and Jessica Palmer

Conflict, Governance and Professionalism

The Hon Justice Terence Arnold, Jack Hodder QC Webinar and Nicola White

Getting the information you need to win your case

Maria Dew and Susan Hornsby-Geluk

Takeovers Code – an overview

Margaret Bearsley

ethics – framing costs and managing client expectations

Dr Duncan Webb

The new High Court Case management regime

The Hon Justice Winkelmann, The Hon Justice Asher, The Hon Justice Fogarty and The Hon Justice Miller

Disciplinary Processes – the thorny issues

Geoff Davenport and Shan Wilson

Pra ra in the GFC – uncertainty in uncertain times

Various

Criminal law Symposium

Various

Booklet purchases (with cheque, direct credit and credit card payment options) available at www.lawyerseducation.co.nz LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

31

Law Foundation Closing dates approaching

Closing dates are approaching for applications for most of the Law Foundation’s offering of legal scholarships and awards.

The foundation is New Zealand’s major funder of legal scholarships. The awards are structured to provide a variety of support options for post-graduate legal study, to suit practising lawyers and legal academics at different levels of experience.

Some scholarships, such as New Zealand’s premier legal award, the International Research Fellowship, help experienced legal experts carry out major original research projects.

It is particularly aimed at the “mid-career” lawyer who has built a wealth of experience in a particular field and wants to do further in-depth research and writing in the field.

Other scholarships assist newly-qualified lawyers, women lawyers, and law graduates carrying out doctoral study. Our newest award, the Shadow Report award, helps non-government organisations report on New Zealand’s compliance with its international treaty obligations.

Following is a list of specific awards and closing dates. I encourage anyone with the right experience to apply. Detailed information on how to apply for all awards is available at www.lawfoundation.org.nz – just click on the Scholarships tab. Please feel free to contact me at Lynda@lawfoundation.org.nz if you would like a preliminary chat about whether you might be eligible.

International Research Fellowship

This award, worth up to $125,000 a year, assists study in New Zealand or overseas aimed at making a significant contribution to our law. It is open to anyone with the required abilities, including academics, judges, government officials or legal practitioners.

The fellowship has been awarded to some distinguished lawyers. A previous winner was former Health and Disability Commissioner Ron Paterson, whose book The Good Doctor – What Patients Want was published in 2012.

An earlier winner, Dr Mark Hickford, senior legal advisor in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, published a criticallyacclaimed work on relationships between the Crown and Māori, Lords of the Lands.

Another winner was Dr Matthew Palmer, formerly with Crown Law, now barrister, who produced a well-publicised book on the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s law and constitution.

32

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

Applications for the International Research Fellowship close on 1 September.

Cleary Memorial Prize

The Cleary celebrates young lawyers who show the most promise of service to and through the profession. The $5,000 prize is open to recently-admitted barristers and/or solicitors.

The current joint holders are Rebecca Rose and Catherine Harwood. Formerly a Supreme Court judge’s clerk and intern to SolicitorGeneral David Collins QC, Rebecca now works at Chapman Tripp in Auckland. Her long list of legal achievements includes tutor and Māori mentor at Victoria and Waikato universities, mooting competition judge, and involvement in community and professional organisations including the Environmental Defence Society and Law and Economics in New Zealand. Catherine is currently a PhD student at Leiden in the Netherlands, and also an unfunded intern at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. She was previously a Court of Appeal judge’s clerk.

In 2010 she established the mentoring scheme “Learner to Lawyer,” which matches students to young lawyers in Wellington.

First awarded in 1964, the Cleary Prize has had some distinguished former winners, including former Justices Baragwanath and Tipping.

Nominations for the Cleary Memorial Prize close on 30 September.

Doctoral Scholarship

This scholarship aims to foster postgraduate study and legal research at New Zealand universities. Masters or honours degree holders are eligible, and the award is worth $35,000 a year for up to three years.

The 2011 winner was Bridgette Toy-Cronin, who is studying unrepresented litigants in New Zealand Courts at Otago University. She is a Harvard law graduate and has worked in legal practice in New Zealand and Australia.

She has advised a women’s rights team in Cambodia and the Government prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda.

Applications should reach the Scholarships Manager of Universities New Zealand by 1 October.

Shadow Report Award

In 2011 the foundation launched a new award to help human rights advocates report on New Zealand’s compliance with its international treaty obligations. The New Zealand Law Foundation Shadow Report Award is worth up to $10,000 each year to help non-government organisations prepare these reports.

United Nations organisations periodically review treaty compliance, and shadow reports provide supplementary or alternative information to help United Nations organisations fully understand the situation of individual countries.

The Human Rights Foundation of Aotearoa New Zealand won the inaugural award.

Human Rights Foundation Chair Peter Hosking says the award will be of great assistance to their reports to United Nations treaty bodies enabling them to provide more indepth reports on key human rights and legal issues to a wider range of UN organisations.

Applications are open to individuals or any body or organisation active in human rights in New Zealand. Applications close on 1 August.

Ethel Benjamin Scholarship

This scholarship for women was established in 1997 to mark the centenary of the admission of Ethel Benjamin as the first woman barrister and solicitor in New Zealand. It is awarded for research that protects and promotes the public interest in New Zealand legal matters, and is valued at $20,000 for study at a New Zealand university or $50,000 for overseas university study.

The current co-holders, Auckland lawyer (currently London-based) Sally Trafford and Wellington lawyer Emma Peart, will start post-graduate study at Harvard and Cambridge respectively later this year. Applications for the Ethel Benjamin Scholarship closed on 1 March.

Distinguished Visitor Fellowship

This award enables university law schools to host an eminent legal scholar for up to two months each year. Each visitor is expected to participate fully in the life of the host law school, giving some select lectures as well as staff and student seminars. The fellow also delivers public lectures at each of the six law schools.

This year’s fellow was Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the first President of the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Lord Phillips visited the six university law schools and delivered lectures during March.

For more information on the foundation’s grants and scholarship programmes, visit www.lawfoundation.org.nz.

Lynda Hagen New Zealand Law Foundation Executive Director

Lawyers Complaints Service

Barristers who accept ‘reverse briefs’ must keep to the rules Where the practice of a “reverse brief” falls down is when neither the barrister nor the solicitor involved fulfils their obligations in terms of the Conduct and Client Care Rules, and the barrister deals directly with the client as if she or he were instructed directly, the Legal Complaints Review Officer has said.

A “reverse brief” is where a barrister arranges for a solicitor to act as his or her instructing solicitor, while maintaining the primary contact with the client.

The LCRO was dealing with a complaint (LCRO 190/2011) arising from a failure to meet the obligations imposed by the Rules of Conduct and Client Care in relation to the funds held by the firm of instructing solicitors, A, for the barrister’s fees. The amount in question was only small, but

nevertheless has resulted in a complaint

by Mr C about the barrister, B. “[Mr C] never met anyone from [the firm of instructing solicitors],” the LCRO said.

“All payments were made or delivered to [B]’s offices. [Mr C] never received any statements from [A]. He never received any comments or advice from that firm, and to all intents and purposes, all that was happening was that [B] was making use of the firm’s trust account. This has resulted in an incorrect view by [B] of her entitlement to the funds held by that firm.”

A, the LCRO said, required “specific instructions” from Mr C to make any payments from funds held on his behalf.

“This could have been in the form of a general instruction to make payment of any bills of costs rendered by [B], but as [Mr C]

had not had any communication with that firm, no such authority existed.”

As the review was not about a complaint against A, no consequences would follow, the LCRO said.

“It is important that barristers and solicitors who accept ‘reverse briefs’ should take note of the fact that until the intervention rule is amended, the Rules remain to be observed, and practitioners who do not fulfil their obligations in terms thereof remain exposed to the disciplinary consequences of ignoring the same.

“It is also important to recognise that although funds may be paid into a solicitor’s account for payment of a barrister’s fees that does not mean that the funds may be paid at the direction of the barrister without authority from the client,” the LCRO said.

Lawyer censured for avoiding his child support obligation A lawyer, A, has been censured and fined $3,000 by a lawyers standards committee after he routed fees away from his practice account to avoid a child support obligation.

The decision came after a New Zealand Law Society inspector wrote to the standards committee, originally about apparent irregularities in A’s administration of the estate of his late mother. In respect of the estate, the committee decided there was no unsatisfactory conduct.

“Plainly if the practitioner was not a lawyer, nothing in his conduct would be cause for any concern,” the committee said.

The committee considered whether A had breached s110 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, which provides that a practitioner “who in the course of his or her practice receives money for, or on behalf of, any person” must ensure that money is paid

into a solicitor’s trust account and hold that money in trust for that person.

“The standards committee is not persuaded that there was in this case a breach [of s110], although it accepts [the Law Society’s inspector’s] view that it would have been wiser for the practitioner to have adopted the standard practice in ensuring that the estate funds were lodged in a lawyer’s trust account.

“The estate funds would, in such a case, have had the protection afforded by the Solicitors’ Fidelity Guarantee Fund, oversight by the New Zealand Law Society inspectorate and possibly cover by the practitioner’s professional indemnity insurance.”

However, in another matter which also became apparent during the inspection, A had admitted routing fees away from his practice account to avoid obligatory payments on a child support obligation. This

amounted to obfuscating A’s true income and could have had the effect of allowing avoidance of income tax or GST obligations, although in this case there was no more than a suspicion in respect of tax.

A’s conduct also breached rule 11.1 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care, which provides that a lawyer must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or is likely to mislead or deceive. The committee’s view is that these words are wide enough to include acting in such a manner towards Inland Revenue in respect of a lawyer’s own affairs. It was unsatisfactory conduct because the benchmark is “conduct that would be regarded by lawyers of good standing as being unacceptable”, and is conduct that is both unbecoming a lawyer, and unprofessional.

As well as the censure and fine, A was ordered to pay the Law Society $1,200 costs.

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

33

R EGISTRY

Coming up …

Constitutional traditions

The following people have applied to the New Zealand Law Society for certificates or approvals A D M I SS I O N

under Part 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 Black Miriam Margaret Catherine Coward Jacqueline Rachael Edwards Sara Louise (Nee Peat)

Egden Belinda Frances Sheila May Jacinda Maclean Nandan Rupika Nation Thomas Charles Glasson

Pohl Alexander Peter Roe Louisa Anne Tucker Tara Unka Dhamendra Ashok Watson Kelsey Patricia

AP P R OVA L TO P RAC T I S E O N OWN ACCOU NT under s 30 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

Clark Jeremy Hampton Guy Kidd Fiona Elizabeth

Riley Timothy Peter Webby Rebekah Elizabeth

The Registry is now advertising names of candidates for certificates of character, practising certificates and approvals to practise on own account on the NZLS website at lawsociety.org.nz/ home/for-lawyers/registry/applications-for-approval/ Comments concerning the suitability of any of the above-named applicants for the certificate or approval being sought should be made in writing to me by 27 June 2013. Any submissions should be given on the understanding that they may be disclosed to the candidate.

LI SA AT T R I L L , R EGIST RY M A N AGER

A conference entitled Unearthing New Zealand’s Constitutional Traditions will be held at Parliament Buildings on 29 and 30 August.

Hosted by the Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson QC, the conference is organised by the New Zealand Centre for Public Law. The Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias, will deliver the opening address and the two keynote speakers are Professor David Hackett Fischer, Earl Warren Professor of History at Brandeis University, and Emeritus Professor Andrew Sharp, Fellow in New Zealand Studies at Birbeck College, University of London/ University of Auckland.

For more information and to register, email nzcpl@vuw.ac.nz.

LEG A L S ERV I CES

ENGLISH LAW AGENCY SERVICES

lisa.attrill@lawsociety.org.nz 04 463 2916 0800 22 30 30, 04 463 2989

SOLICITORS E ta Es t blis ish is shed 182 825 82 25

WI LL S

Fearon & Co specialise in acting fo f r non-residents in the f elds of Probate, Property fi t and Litigation. In particular:ty

TONI LEE HAYWARD

THOMPSON DAVIS LEWIS

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Papakura, Educational Manager, who died on 29 April 2013, please contact Rice Craig, PO Box 72440, Papakura 2244, or DX EP76506, ph 09 295 1700, fax 09 295 1710, email philip.norton@ricecraig.co.nz.

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Whangarei, born on 11 June 1940, who died on 24 March 2013, please contact Robyn Mathews Lawyers, PO Box 664, Whangarei 0140, ph 09 437 3070, fax 09 437 2070, email robyn@rmlawyers.co.nz.

NOEL FREDRIC PIERSON

RUTH FRANCES UPPERTON

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Wellington, who died on 25 November 2012, please contact Peter Jones of Jones Law, Solicitors, DX SP26512 or PO Box 25230, Wellington 6146, ph 04 499 0972, fax 04 499 0157, email plj@joneslaw.co.nz.

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Kerikeri, who died on 31 May 2013, please contact Graeme McLelland, McLeods Lawyers, Private Bag 1002, Kerikeri 0245, ph 09 407 0170, fax 09 407 7089, email glm@mcleods.co.nz.

• Obtaining Grants of Re R presentat a ion fo at f r Estat a es in at Engl g and and Wa gl Wal ales, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and elsew ewh ew where and re r -seal a ing al n Au ng A str tra tr ral ali lian a an a d New e Zeal ew a an al a d Gra Gr ran ant nts of Re R pre r sent re n at nt ati tion • Ad A ministering English Estates • Buy uyi uy ying and selling homes and business premises • Re R cov ove ov vering compensation fo f r accident vi v ctims • Litigation including Debt Re R cov ove ov very r and Matrimonial Our off ffi ff fices ar a e wi w thin easy s reach of the London sy A rp Ai r ort r s and Central rt a London Stat al a ions at

VIS VI ISI SIT IT OUR U WE UR WEB EBSI SIT ITE TE ww www ww. w.fe f aronlaw aw. aw w.com W stminster House, 6 Faraday We a Ro ay R ad, Guildfo f rd, Surrey GU1 1EA fo E , United Ki EA K ngdom T l: 00 44 (0)1483 540840 Fax Te a : 00 44 (0)1483 540844 ax General Email: enquiries@fe f aronlaw fe aw. aw w.com

LITIGA GAT GA ATION

Martin Wi W lliams 00 44 (0 (0) 0)1483 540843

m @fe mw f ar fe aro ronl n aw aw. w.com

PROPERT RTY RT TY John Phillips

00 44 (0)1483 540841

a p@fe aj f ar fe aro ronl nla law awco aw. w co com om

PROBAT A E AT

Francesca Nash 00 44 (0 (0) 0)1483 540842

f @fe fn f ar fe aro ronlaw aw. aw w.com

Reg Re egula l te la t d by b th t e So S licito t rs to r Re Reg egula l tion Auth la t ority th t of ty o En Eng ngl gla land and Wa W le les es

CHRISTINE WILSON Advertising Co-ordinator advertising@lawsociety.org.nz 04 463 2905

34

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

The Classifieds.

WI LL S

LEG A L S ERV I CES

JOHN DESMOND STUDDERS

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Lower Hutt, structural engineer, who died on or about 5 February 2013, please contact Michelle Beeby, Solicitor, ARL Lawyers, DX RP42002 or PO Box 30430, Lower Hutt 5040, ph 04 566 6777, fax 04 569 3354, email m.beeby@arl-lawyers.co.nz.

HARE RIRINUI aka HARRY RIRINUI and MARIE TE MAARI RIRINUI

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Mount Maunganui, who died on 26 November 2003 and 4 October 2002 respectively, please contact Anne Holloway Law, PO Box 15640, Tauranga 3144, ph 07 571 1394, fax 07 571 1396, email anne@landlaw.co.nz.

CHING-KWEI CHIU

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, also known as CHIU CHING-KWEI LIN, late of Auckland, housewife, born on 28 November 1940, aged 73 years, who died on 10 January 2013 at Hsinbei City, Taiwan, please contact Ben Bong of Wong & Bong Law Office, PO Box 51454, Pakuranga, Auckland 2140, ph 09 535 5886, fax 09 535 5947, email ben@wongbong.co.nz.

SDS DOCUMENT SERVICES SDS will serve your legal documents promptly and professionally plus service (prepared in accordance with District, Family & High Court Rules).

Auckland (Albany to Papakura)

$75.00

Nationwide (main towns & cities)

$120.00

Add $30 for urgent pick up & serve – Auckland

Plus GST mileage is charged to remote locations @ $0.95 per kkm

Other services available Document serving – International Tracing – NZ, Australia, USA & England Tr

ANA MARY ANN AIONO

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Porirua, Corrections Officer, who died on 24 April 2013, please contact Catriona Doyle, Family Law Specialists Limited, PO Box 50513, Porirua 5240, or DX SP32504, ph 04 237 4063, fax 04 237 4062, email catriona@familylawspecialists.co.nz.

Repossessions – commercial & domestic

KURT DESMOND LEAMING

PO Box 35142, Auckland 0753

Re-entries – commercial & domestic

Contact Details SDS Document Services

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, formerly of Auckland, latterly of Brisbane, Australia, aged 26, boat builder, who died on 6 January 2013, please contact Rice Craig, PO Box 72440, Papakura 2244, or DX EP76506, ph 09 295 1717, fax 09 295 1710, email stephen.temm@ricecraig.co.nz.

DX BP62024 Tel: 09 475 6206 / Fax: 09 475 6205 Te

www.sdsdocuments.co.nz

LEONARD RICHARD ALFRED MOLE

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 53 Sunnybrae Road, Hillcrest, Auckland, who died on 14 August 1985, please contact Fortune Manning Lawyers, PO Box 4139, Auckland 1140, ph 09 915 2406, fax 09 915 2402, email klm@fmlaw.co.nz.

SHELLEY WILLA BROWN

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, formerly of Gisborne, but late of Beach Haven, Auckland, teacher aide, born on 6 November 1963, who died on 1 April 2013, please contact Graeme Ogier, King Legal, PO Box 34319, Birkenhead, Auckland 0746, ph 09 480 7096, fax 09 480 7077, email graeme@kinglegal.co.nz.

RACHEL LYNNE THOMPSON

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Henderson, Auckland, nurse aide/student, who died on 28 June 2011, aged 42 years, please contact Sharna MacKrell at Bush Forbes, PO Box 526, Tauranga 3140 or DX HP40017, ph 07 577 6039, fax 07 577 6863, email sharna.mackrell@ bushforbes.co.nz.

TO LET

Legal Chambers Available To Lease

40-42 Eden Crescent - near Auckland High Court •

High quality office space available for long term lease.

•

Premises consist of a large private office together with shared board room and separate meeting room.

•

Purpose built high quality fit-out for legal chambers.

•

Offered on a walk-in basis with high speed secure internet and IP phone systems included.

•

Room for receptionist or personal assistant also if needed.

•

Car park available

•

Flexible lease term and competitive rental for high quality legal tenants Call Theo Kyriak - 022 3523858

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

35

L E GAL SERV IC ES

S I T UAT I O N S VACA N T

A chAnge is As good As A holidAy …

Intermediate In-house Solicitor – Large national organisation seeks corporate/commercial solicitor for a role offering variety: contracts, consumer law, privacy, company law – you name it.

33428.

Commercial Lawyer – Excellent opportunity to develop your commercial/property skills. Great environment, great potential, great lifestyle. Regain that balance. Nelson. 32777.

Senior Property Lawyer – Highly reputable firm seeks a competent, confident and career focused practitioner. Potential +. Christchurch.

33106.

Intermediate / Senior Solicitor – Well established, busy practice requires 4+ pqe practitioner with property, estates, trusts, and commercial experience. Wellington CBD. 33517.

Staff Solicitor – Busy practice requires a staff lawyer with a minimum 1-2 years’ family law experience. Criminal law experience advantageous. Excellent litigation skills essential. Join this supportive, positive environment. Upper Hutt. 32898.

For more details please contact Jane Wellik on 04 978 1809 or Suzannah Moller on 04 499 6161. Alternatively, email your CV to wellingtonjobs@momentum.co.nz quoting the reference number.

191 Queen Street Auckland P +64 9 306 5500

senior legAl counsel – mAternity leAve cover Our client is a small organisation working in the energy sector. They require a lawyer for 12 months’ maternity leave cover, commencing in September 2013. Key accountabilities of this role include managing a regulatory compliance process; identifying legal risks; drafting contracts; advising on regulatory processes; and providing general legal advice.

Ideal candidates for this role will have: • Corporate/commercial law and regulatory experience, preferably with some experience in utilities • An understanding of compliance regimes • A proven track record of producing high quality work and meeting project deadlines.

Attractions of the role include working with a team of experts in an organisation that is professional and convivial. A full job description is available.

Applications close at 5pm on Wednesday 3 July.

To apply visit www.momentum.co.nz and enter the reference number 33543 or email your CV and cover letter to wellingtonjobs@momentum.co.nz quoting the reference number.

For further information in strict confidence, please contact Jane Wellik or Suzannah Moller on 04 499 6161.

All applications will be acknowledged electronically unless otherwise specified.

40 Mercer Street Wellington P +64 4 499 6161

M O M E N T U M .C O. NZ

SI TUATIONS VAC ANT

Property and Commercial Lawyer Auckland – 18 Month Fixed Term Contract Here is your opportunity to join McDonald’s Restaurants, New Zealand’s largest quick service restaurant provider and one of the world’s leading brands. Are you a high achiever looking for an exciting new challenge? If you have a high level of motivation and passion to secure positive outcomes, desire autonomy with responsibility and an opportunity to grow then this might be for you. We have a unique position available for a confident and capable individual.

Reporting to our General Counsel you will be an experienced lawyer with a strong academic background and 6+ years PQE in both Commercial Property and Corporate Law. You must possess strong legal technical skills and experience in negotiating, reviewing and documenting leases and commercial agreements.

Are you up for the challenge?

The PERSON for the role The successful candidate must have a high degree of initiative, strong commercial acumen and outstanding written and oral communication skills. It is critical that this person is able to work collaboratively, build relationships and deliver exceptional customer service at all levels. A strong knowledge of Microsoft Word is required.

In return we offer an attractive salary (commensurate with the person and experience) and a balanced lifestyle.

LOCATION This position is based at our Auckland Office.

ARE YOU THE ONE? Please send a CV and covering letter to Josephine Richardson, Josephine.Richardson@nz.mcd.com before 5pm 30th June 2013.

36

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

Junior Criminal Lawyer Auckland Vacancy 24403 The Public Defence Service has a commitment to providing independent, high quality, timely, legal advice and representation in a full range of criminal cases including providing professional leadership of the duty lawyer service.

Reporting to the Deputy Public Defender, Auckland, your enthusiasm and skills will contribute to the delivery of high quality public defence services in the summary and trial jurisdiction at Auckland Courts.

This position presents an opportunity to contribute to a significant development in criminal defence services in New Zealand. You will have strong advocacy skills, be able to work in a team, relate well to people from diverse backgrounds and to manage a high caseload.

This is not a graduate level position. As a junior lawyer you will have completed the duty solicitor training and have category one approval.

This is an opportunity to advance your legal career in a busy, challenging and supportive environment. The Public Defence Service can offer you a commitment to your ongoing professional development, a competitive salary and the opportunity to make a contribution to the legal profession in New Zealand.

To apply, please go to the Ministry of Justice vacancies website http://careers.justice.govt.nz/Pages/Vacancies.aspx click on the position job title and follow the instructions.

Applications close Monday, 1 July 2013.

SI TUATIONS VAC ANT

Government Communications Security Bureau

The Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) is looking to increase the capability of the Legal Team. We are in the process of developing our team and have a number of newly created positions to assist in the delivery of legal services across the organisation.

Due to the nature of the Intelligence Community the work is varied and challenging. Both roles provide legal advice and reporting concerning: •

the GCSB’s compliance with all applicable legislation in operational and corporate matters, including support to compliance and policy processes and staff training

•

the drafting of legislation proposed by the GCSB

•

existing or proposed legislation which may affect the GCSB

•

international law, agreements or undertakings which may impact on GCSB, including drafting and reviewing contracts for GCSB

•

matters relating to Parliamentary business

•

legal advice relating to Bureau responses under the provisions of the Official Information and Ombudsman Acts, and assisting with the management of the Bureau’s obligations under the Privacy Act

•

assisting in representing the GCSB in employment relations matters

•

support to investigations and proceedings

LEGAL ADVISER This role will assist the Chief Legal Adviser in the provision of timely, high quality legal advice on all matters relating to the operational and administrative activities of the Bureau.

To be successful in the role you will have: •

Degree in law and qualification to practise as a barrister and solicitor in New Zealand

•

A current practising certificate

The successful appointees will preferably be familiar with the functions of a legal adviser to corporate or public service management at an intermediate level (4+ PQE). You will have excellent judgment and self-management, and be prepared make an effective contribution to a small hardworking Legal Team.

SENIOR LEGAL ADVISER The day to day workload in the intelligence community is stimulating, varied and carries significant responsibility. As a Senior Legal Advisor, you will exercise independent judgment to provide legal advice across the organisation.

To be successful in the role you will have: •

Degree in law and qualification to practise as a barrister and solicitor in New Zealand

•

A current practising certificate

The successful appointees will preferably be familiar with the functions of a legal adviser to corporate or public service management at a senior level (8+ PQE). You will have excellent judgment and self-management, and be prepared to make an effective contribution to a small hardworking Legal Team, including supporting the Chief Legal Adviser in the good management of the Team.

You will join a group of highly talented people who are dedicated to protecting New Zealand’s national security. We offer a dynamic work environment, opportunities for professional and personal development, and a competitive remuneration package.

Please note: our security requirements mean you should also have held NZ citizenship for at least 10 years and be prepared to undertake and maintain a high-level security clearance.

Please forward an up-to-date CV and completed External Application Form to hr@gcsb.govt.nz. Please indicate which Legal role you are applying for and include at least two legal references.

Applications close Friday 5 July 2013 at 5pm.

LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013 ·

37

SI TUATIONS VAC ANT

Medical Council of New Zealand LEGAL ADVISER • •

Full time, permanent role Central Wellington based with some travel

The Medical Council of New Zealand is an authority set up to protect the health and safety of the public by ensuring that doctors are competent to practise medicine. This is achieved by registering doctors to practise medicine in New Zealand and by regulating doctors’ education, performance, standards, conduct, and health.

We wish to appoint a legal adviser to assist and support our Senior Legal Adviser and Registrar. Applicants should be knowledgeable and experienced in medical law and legislation relevant to the health sector, specifically the Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act 2003. Litigation experience would be helpful. You will be part of a small in-house legal team working with the Registrar, senior managers, other staff, and Council committees.

Core responsibilities include: • • • • •

Provide legal advice to professional conduct committees investigating concerns about the conduct of doctors.Work with prosecuting counsel to prepare cases, including evidence, for hearing at the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.

Review and evaluate case management issues, provide relevant legal advice and guide decision making in particular cases.

Identify opportunities for the Council to improve its delivery of regulatory functions including recommendations for changes to policy, procedure, and training.

Identify issues and risks and communicate this effectively within the organisation.

Advise on steps to be taken to mitigate risk.

This role requires a minimum of 3 years PQE, possibly 2 may be acceptable if those years are health sector related.

For more information (including a job description) or to apply for the position, please email Rachel Martin (HR Adviser) on rmartin@mcnz.org.nz .

Applications will be actioned as they are received.

Family and Criminal Litigator Taupo We are a two partner general practice firm of 11 staff providing high quality legal services in Taupo and the Central Plateau.

We require a motivated and enthusiastic litigator to join our practice, where you will be working with a primary focus on family and criminal law with an established client base. You will: • Be capable of total file management • Have Legal Aid Category 1 – and Duty Solicitor approval • Have excellent oral and written communication skills • Be a confident advocate comfortable with regular court appearances • Be a team player We provide a friendly and capable team with relaxed modern offices from which you can walk to Court, no parking hassles, zero traffic worries and access to a wonderful lifestyle in the central North Island. A competitive remuneration package is available depending on experience, and you will have the opportunity to participate in an attractive bonus structure.

You can drive this role as hard as you like and be able to participate in other areas of interest including employment, civil litigation and general practice. There are good career prospects for the right applicant.

Applications with accompanying CV should be made by 5 July 2013: Email: tmounsey@mmclaw.co.nz – with “Litigation position” in the subject line.

Some careers shine brighter than others.

Senior Legal Advisor, HSBC New Zealand

INTERMEDIATE/SENIOR LAWYER Tripe Matthews Feist wish to employ an intermediate/senior lawyer to work in our central Wellington law practice and we can offer the right person potential to progress with our firm.

We seek a lawyer who has experience in the areas of commercial, property, trust and estate law.

The successful applicant will have effective communication, excellent client management skills and the ability to establish and develop relationships with existing and prospective clients.

Written applications together with curriculum vitae to be forwarded to: The Staff Partner, Tripe Matthews Feist, PO Box 5003 WELLINGTON 6145 or Email: christine@tmf.co.nz

38

· LawTalk 821 · 21 June 2013

If you’re looking for a career that will help you stand out, join HSBC and fulfil your potential. Whether you want a career that could take you to the top, or simply take you in an exciting new direction, HSBC offers opportunities, support and rewards that will take you further.

Offering a diverse range of legal skills and jurisdictional experience across the full range of countries and territories in which our businesses operate. HSBC Group Legal plays an important role in the day-to-day and long-term planning activities of all of our businesses around the world. Responsible for providing comprehensive legal advice to senior management and all Group functions, the team advises on and takes an active involvement in all business and operational strategies and initiatives, from legislative and regulatory matters to the setting of policies, standards and procedures for guarding against and reporting on legal risk and reputational management issues.

We are currently seeking an ambitious individual to join the New Zealand team in the role of Senior Legal Advisor. Reporting to the General Counsel, you will provide high quality legal advice, and assist in managing the legal risks for all parts of the HSBC New Zealand business.

You will have 5 – 7 years post admission experience in private practice or in-house.

Banking and Finance/Financial Services experience is essential. You must be able to demonstrate strong communication, problem-solving, and leadership skills. You will have a proven track record and the ability to manage a diverse portfolio of matters.

Please submit all applications to humanresources@hsbc.co.nz by Friday 12 July 2013.

You’ll achieve more when you join HSBC. www.hsbc.co.nz

HSBC takes pride in a diverse and inclusive working environment that sees our people benefit from mentoring, flexible working and the support of Employee Resource Network Groups. Personal data held by the Bank relating to employment applications will be used in accordance with our Privacy Statement, which is available on our website.