LawNews- Issue 12

thelawassociation.nz

Photo: RUNSTUDIO/Getty Images

Meet Clayton Kimpton, The Law Association’s new CEO

It was for me an awesome break from the bubble of law, as much as anything else

Clayton Kimpton quit the law in 2012 for a career in commerce, diplomacy and trade in Africa, India and the Middle East. He talks to LawNews about why he has returned to New Zealand after 10 years in Dubai and where he thinks The Law Association should be heading

Why did you leave the law?

I’d been an executive chair of Kensington Swan for four terms. I was coming off that and knew I needed a break. It’s reasonably intense, being in those large law firm leadership roles. And the stars sort of aligned when an opportunity came up with NZTE (New Zealand Trade and Enterprise) and MFAT (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade) to take up a role as regional director for Africa, India and the Middle East. This involved reviewing New Zealand’s footprint across agencies and seeing what, from an outsider’s perspective, New Zealand could be doing up there.

Kensington Swan had had an office in Abu Dhabi and I was very familiar with doing business in the Gulf region. And because I wasn’t with MFAT, I wasn’t with NZTE and I wasn’t with any other agency, I was able to do a review relatively independently.

When this opportunity came up, as I finished being chair and before I moved back into doing 100% practice work, I just grabbed it and worked really closely with the ministers who at that stage were Murray McCully and Tim Groser.

The key thing about the review was to [come up with] recommendations the ambassadors and other agencies up there all agreed with. And once that went in and the funding minister said yes, that’s what we want to do, then I was asked to implement [the recommendations]. For instance, we needed to close down our office in Pakistan. We needed to resource North Africa, we needed to resource more people in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. It really came down to that implementation side of things. Then when I came back to New Zealand, the minister asked

Continued on page 04

Continued from page 03

me to do a cabinet paper on whether New Zealand should participate in the [Dubai] Expo. And then I was asked to be the commissioner-general for the expo.

It was for me an awesome break from the bubble of law, as much as anything else. But I also found that because of the experience I’d gained over the previous 25 years, I was able to make a real difference to that review and the work we were doing up there.

The decision to break away from the law went in stages. I wanted a break, like a sabbatical. And then I ended up enjoying it so much that I stayed for longer. It’s been a really rich experience. If you do a career plan, you don’t say ‘right, and at this stage of my career I’m going to go up and do diplomacy’. But sometimes you’ve got to see an opportunity and take it.

It also gave me the opportunity to get some direct business experience, managing significant budgets and the diplomacy started being very complex, particularly around Expo and dealing with various crises.

When we came back after Expo at the end of 2021, we made a decision that the next season needed to be in New Zealand. We could have gone back overseas but one of the compelling reasons [to stay] was that we’ve got elderly parents and one of the things the pandemic taught us was that you could no longer promise to be back in 24 hours. I was actually caught in Dubai for five months. This isn’t because of quarantine in New Zealand but because there were no planes.

What was so attractive about The Law Association role?

It came down to finding the right sort of fit, if you like, given my experience. I wasn’t compelled to go back to being a full-time lawyer.

I felt that my leadership and strategic and business experience added a string to my bow that I wouldn’t necessarily be able to use if I were a practising lawyer. And I’d been consulting to the countries in the Gulf for the past year when this opportunity came along. It really did seem to fit my legal background and the business background. And I feel The Law Association is at a point where it perhaps needs some fresh insight. I think it’s helpful that I’m a lawyer and I understand how law firms, from big to small, operate.

As we try and shape The Law Association to support the business of law in New Zealand and go beyond the things we’ve always done to say, ‘well, what sort of support do the business of law and lawyers need in New Zealand and how can we better meet those needs?’, I’d like to think people will see The Law Association as very much a key part of the development of the

success of their business, engaging with all stakeholders, from government officials and ministers and the judiciary through to other stakeholders.

I think the name change away from ADLS was really important but we now need to wrap around the story behind that. What is it that The Law Association does? I think we’ve got to come up with some really succinct responses to that. The branding needs to get out there in a way that is a very clear proposition as to what the role of The Law Association is and how it can fit into a lawyer’s and a law firm’s life. What is our proposition and what’s our kaupapa? That’s what I would like to focus on.

What is your view of last year’s independent review of the legal profession?

Look, I’ve studied the response. I don’t see the need to establish a new regulatory body. We already have a regulatory body, so let’s allow that body to focus. And I don’t subscribe to a regulatory body also being able to be a representative body. I think there has to be a distinction. Just like, you know, the Commerce Commission isn’t also the Chamber of Commerce. That’s a more extreme example, but it’s probably apposite. But we don’t need to go and create a new entity.

Upcoming challenges?

One of the big things is AI. We know that lawyers are struggling with that, so that’s one of the things we need to get on top of. How do we use AI? How can we reach out to law firms and help shape what those sort of resources are for law firms and lawyers? And also talking to government. Where’s the regulatory environment so all businesses can operate safely within this fast-growing environment? I did see a graph recently about how many years it took to get 100 million people using a telephone, compared with how many years it took for people to take up AI. The pace of change is just staggering. Rather than just looking at our existing businesses, we’re going to have to make sure that we adapt to this new environment. We keep on evolving. It’s so important because otherwise we’re just going to get left behind.

As a lawyer, we are risk averse. We don’t really want to change the way we’re doing things or unless it’s easy. And I remember when all the technology that came in around how to make discovery easier, it was quite clunky. And so there’s quite a resistance to picking up some of these new ways of doing business or new ways of doing something that could be a process. I think AI has changed that. So how do we help lawyers come to grips with a very new environment?

I’d love to think that we could be at the forefront of that as well as doing our business as usual. ■

I don’t subscribe to a regulatory body also being able to be a representative body

Privacy watchdog changes draft biometrics code of practice

Consent works best in situations where the consequences are easy to imagine, there’s real choice and the decision is taken seriously

Reweti Kohere

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has made three changes to a draft code of practice to regulate the “growing and diversifying” use of biometrics, including a proposal that organisations try to get people’s consent before collecting this special type of personal information.

Other suggested changes include further guidance on earmarked modifications to existing Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) and a switch from restricting the use of biometrics for marketing to regulating intrusive types of biometric classification – an “emerging and growing” category of use.

The office last week released for public consultation its draft Biometric Processing Privacy Code, following a more targeted round of consultation in mid-2023.

The Privacy Act 2020 regulates the use of personal information in New Zealand, and the office considers biometric information – the way people walk, the irises in their eyes, their distinct facial shapes, their fingerprints and the characteristics of their voices – a special type of personal information as it’s fundamental to a person’s sense of identity.

When processed using facial recognition and other automated processing technologies, biometrics can identify people and work out other kinds of information about them. Because of this, additional rules have been drafted for organisations using these automated processing technologies, with Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster recognising their use carries benefits and risks.

“The use of biometrics is growing and diversifying, and I want to ensure New Zealanders and New Zealand businesses that they can harness the benefits of this technology but also be protected from potential harm,” Webster says. “We need to embrace technological advancement, but it’s vitally important to

me that we also do the research, thinking and planning that keeps people safe and protects their right to privacy.”

Privacy safeguard

In the office’s 57-page consultation document accompanying the draft code, it says it has decided not to add a standalone general consent requirement as first proposed last year in its discussion document.

There, the office proposed that organisations would have to get people’s informed consent before collecting their biometric information, which would have brought New Zealand into line with other jurisdictions such as Australia and the EU.

and ensuring practices comply with policies.

Organisations will not breach the code if they don’t put in place every safeguard, the office says. “Rather, what is required is for each organisation to adopt any privacy safeguards, these ones, or other safeguards, that are relevant for their context and reasonably practical to implement.”

Proportionate, clear, fair

Previous submissions have emphasised to the office the need to keep the IPPs “flexible and technologyneutral”, the office says. The main changes are in rules 1, 3 and 4, with supplementary changes to rules 2, 6 and 10. Each of the rules in the code corresponds to their respective IPP in the Privacy Act.

The use of biometrics is growing and diversifying

However, under its draft rules, the office has acknowledged the general requirement of consent would have proved difficult to work in practice, including where biometrics are collected at a distance. And the requirement started to lose its utility when necessary exceptions were considered.

The general consent requirement wasn’t the best tool for the job either. “Consent places a burden on people and with busy lives, there’s a risk it would be overlooked by consumers,” the office says. “Consent works best in situations where the consequences are easy to imagine, there’s real choice and the decision is taken seriously.”

Instead, the office would require organisations to uphold privacy rights by mandating that they put in place the “privacy safeguard” of obtaining consent, where appropriate, upon collecting biometric information for processing. The office defines privacy safeguards as relevant and reasonably practical actions or processes that mitigate the reasonable likelihood of privacy risk. Other examples include subjecting biometric systems to testing, training staff

Under the draft code, agencies collecting and using biometric information will have to decide whether their reasons for using biometric technologies outweigh the privacy intrusion or risks of doing so (rule 1). Such agencies must have “clear signs or notices and make additional information publicly available” (rule 3) and, under what is now known as the “fair processing limits” requirement in rule 4, organisations must not use biometric classification to infer information about people’s health, personality or mood, physical state, gender and ethnicity and other demographics.

In its final change, the office has reconsidered its initial proposal to restrict the use of biometrics for marketing, saying that regulating intrusive types of biometric classification, such as emotion recognition or categorising people in certain ways, is a better approach. “Marketers should take note that some of the other rules in the draft code may impact on certain types of biometric processing that they want to use,” the office warns.

Consultation remains open until 8 May, after which feedback will be considered and any necessary changes to the draft will be made. A further period of formal consultation will occur before the code of practice is issued. ■

Why trustees must keep good records

Anthony Grant

Sections 45 – 48 of the Trusts Act 2019 impose various obligations on trustees to maintain records about a trust. In my experience, it is surprising how many trustees fail to comply with these obligations.

The statutory requirements provide that trustees must keep not only what I will call “primary” documents (including the trust deed, any variations of it and details of trust assets and liabilities) but also retain records of all trustee decisions. This obviously includes decisions about distributions to beneficiaries.

If a trust requires unanimity and if it allows majority voting, then details of voting should be recorded. If a trust prohibits self-dealing, details of who voted for a distribution to a trustee beneficiary should be recorded.

I sometimes get the impression that some trustees think a failure to keep proper records will mean they will be immune from criticism since a court will not know whether a decision complied with the terms of the trust.

A failure to comply with these obligations to keep proper records may be expensive. If distributions

There is a widespread misunderstanding about the length of time for which trust records should be kept

have been made to beneficiaries without an adequate record of whether the trustees have complied with their obligations, they may be personally liable to restore the funds to the trust. Beneficiaries, too, may be liable to repay distributions to the trust if it cannot be shown that the distributions they received were made in compliance with the terms of the trust deed.

Another aspect of record-keeping by trustees should be mentioned. In my experience, there is a widespread misunderstanding about the length of time for which trust records should be kept. I have seen cases where accountants have destroyed all trust records after a period of years. This is not lawful. Trust records are to be maintained indefinitely. Each trustee is required by s 45(e) of the Trusts Act to keep “records of … decisions made during the trustee’s trusteeship” no matter how long the trusteeship lasts.

Section 47 has a slight modification to this rule. It provides that “a trustee must keep, so far as is reasonable, the documents for the duration of the trustee’s trusteeship”. The words “so far as is reasonable” may relieve a trustee for failing to maintain some records but a court may be unsympathetic to a trustee who has not kept proper records in an

Friday 17 May

era when computers can store huge amounts of information electronically.

As all trust practitioners will be aware, the courts are steadily requiring higher standards of competence from trustees, and this will apply to record-keeping.

An incidental expense for non-complying trustees will be the costs of litigation about an absence of proper records since trustees who fail to keep proper documentation may not be able to recover their costs from the trust and may have to pay the costs personally.

I write about this subject because of the failures I see in some of the cases I have to deal with in practice, and also from reading a recent decision in Australia where the degree of non-compliance with recordkeeping was truly outstanding.

The decision did not record the costs outcome but had the case been decided in New Zealand under the terms of ss 45 – 48 of the Trusts Act, it is likely that the trustees would have been personally liable to pay the full legal costs of a very complicated hearing. ■

Friday 17 May 2024

Auckland 9 00am - 6 00pm

Livestream 9 00am - 5 00pm

Anthony Grant is an Auckland barrister and trustee, specialising in trusts and estates ■

Dawn blessing for North Shore court

Landlord recoups body corporate fine from unruly tenant

The complaints included fighting, throwing furniture off the balcony, excessive noise, spilling drinks in the lift and common areas, police call-outs and stealing packages from the entrance foyer

Sally Lindsay

Fined by City Gardens body corporate because of his tenant’s unruly behaviour, the landlord of an Auckland inner-city apartment has been able to claim back the money.

The Tenancy Tribunal has ordered Moeroa Piriau Junior to pay the landlord $6,573.62, which includes the $250 body corporate fine.

Numerous letters and emails between the body corporate, the landlord (who has name suppression) and the tenant were provided to the tribunal about the anti-social behaviour of the tenant and/or the friends she allowed into her apartment.

The reports included fighting, throwing furniture off the balcony, excessive noise, spilling drinks in the lift and common areas, police call-outs and stealing packages from the entrance foyer.

As a consequence of these reports, the landlord was fined for the actions of the tenant and asked the tribunal for the fine to be recovered from the tenant.

Adjudicator J Northwood said given the number of complaints and the involvement of the body corporate and apartment management, the landlord had proven his claim for the fine to be recovered from Junior.

The landlord also claimed exemplary damages because of the trouble the tenant caused to other tenants and building management, but Northwood was unable to award damages for this type of claim.

The landlord also wanted rent arrears, compensation and a refund of the bond.

Photos were provided of the property before it was let to Junior and at the end of her tenancy in September last year. The exit photos showed rubbish strewn throughout the property and a heavily stained and dirty carpet.

There was extensive damage to the walls throughout the apartment, along with a broken main fire door and bedroom door and a missing kitchen cabinet door. Blinds were missing from the bedroom. Northwood said the damage was more than fair wear-and-tear and the tenant had not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord was awarded $2,270 in rent arrears, $1,380 for damage to the apartment’s walls, and $2,907 for repairs to the main fire wall. The rest of the $6,573.62 was for cleaning and rubbish removal, replacing furnishings, unblocking drains and lock and key replacement.

Read the decision here ■

At 5.30am on Saturday 13 April, Kaumatua Kereama Nathan led the blessing of the newly renovated North Shore District Court, supported by Ngāti Whātua and Te Herenga Waka o Orewa Marae

Kereama Nathan

Does anybody still care about the media?

Wilson’s think-

piece is one of the most eloquent explanations for why fewer and fewer people trust the news media

Chris Trotter

Chris Trotter

The most striking aspect of the crisis engulfing the news media is its victim’s inability to grasp what’s happening.

So preoccupied has the journalistic profession become with its own precarity that it has failed to notice that almost nobody else appears to share its alarm. Suppose the mainstream news media disappeared – and nobody cared?

The contrast between the absence of public concern in 2024 and the loud and emotional support for media outlets of barely a decade ago, tracked empirically since 2020 by the Auckland University of Technology’s Journalism, Media and Democracy (JMAD) team, could hardly be more poignant.

I vividly recall standing on the low wall outside Radio New Zealand’s Auckland studios and offering the surprisingly large crowd a passionate defence of public broadcasting. It was, I said, the crack in the neoliberal wall through which the light gets in. And at least one of the neoliberals, Don Brash, appeared to agree, telling me, at roughly the same time, that Radio New Zealand needed to survive, if only because there had to be at least one reliable source of accurate, fair and balanced news in New Zealand. Would he say the same today? I wonder.

What, then, is the reason for the 20 percentage point drop (from 53% to 33%) in the public’s trust and confidence in the news media which JMAD has recorded between 2020 and 2024?

A large part of the answer was provided by the awardwinning investigative journalist Michael Morrah, one of the roughly 300 staff being “let go” by Warner Bros Discovery as it shrugged off its Newshub news and current affairs financial burden. Responding to the closure, Morrah commented that most people went into journalism “to try and improve society in some form”. He did not offer this as criticism, but as testimony to the good character of his colleagues.

Just how relieved he and those colleagues will be at the eleventh-hour arrival of Stuff to save the day is debatable. The more sharp-eyed among them will have noticed that Sinead Boucher arrived in a mini-van, not in a bus. Clearly, there will not be room for everyone in the pared-back news package Stuff is being contracted to produce for TV3. There will, however, be genuine relief that it is Boucher and not Rupert Murdoch who is reaching out the helping hand. Stuff’s owner is a firm believer in the improvements “progressive” journalism can make to society, up to and including acknowledging the

political sins of journalists writing in less progressive centuries.

Collateral repair

But, is it really the job of the journalist to “improve” society? Good journalism, as opposed to skilful propaganda, does not seek to improve but to inform: to tell the world what is happening in a specific place, at a specific time, to a specific group of people – and why. The journalist is not a missionary or – God forbid! – a politician. The journalist, like Rudyard Kipling’s creation, the Elephant’s Child, should simply be afflicted with “’satiable curiosity”.

Dogged, cussed, unwilling to take ‘no’ for an answer, journalists absolutely need to know why so much effort is being expended on keeping them ignorant. “Newshounds” don’t want to “improve society”, they just want to catch that damned, obfuscating fox. If society is improved in the process, that’s wonderful. Call it “collateral repair”.

When the nation is at war, however, or facing some other kind of national emergency, the journalist’s preferred position of moral agnosticism should probably be suspended. To preserve morale, and/or to encourage pro-social behaviour – like being vaccinated against covid-19 – promoting public trust and confidence in the authorities, comes uncomfortably close to being the journalist’s duty. The trick lies in recognising when the time has come to stop saluting the flag and recommence asking annoying questions.

Perhaps that’s where the rot set in for New Zealand journalism. Perhaps the thrill of imparting information crucial to the health of their readers, listeners and viewers, and to the “improvement” of society as a whole, was just too satisfying. So, why stop? After all, if it is the duty of a journalist to promote the vaccination of the population in the midst of a pandemic, then it is surely also the duty of the journalist to do all he or she can to combat the socio-political viruses of white supremacy, Islamophobia, transphobia and misogyny? And if it is okay to deny a platform to conspiratorial anti-vaxxers, then why not do the same to all those racist reactionaries out there declaiming against indigenisation and decolonisation?

Improving the world

That this is more than a mere thought experiment is confirmed

Continued on page 09

Continued from page 08 in Trust down, jobs gone, what’s the media going to do now?, a think-piece by The New Zealand Herald’s senior writer covering politics, the climate crisis, transport, housing, urban design and social issues (whew!), Simon Wilson.

Digging down into JMAD’s statistics, Wilson emerges triumphantly with the news that the New Zealanders expressing the least trust and confidence in the news media are “middleaged Pakeha”.

“Where have we heard that before?” Wilson asks rhetorically. “Only everywhere.” Then he really goes to town.

with their feet; the conclusion of those journalists intent upon improving the world is to go on doing what they’re doing – and to hell with their “shouty” critics.

These are no longer people afflicted with an insatiable curiosity to know what’s going on, but with a fixed determination to tell the world what it should think, and what it should do

“Turns out the people who complain the most about media are the people who complain the most about everything. Taxes and rates. Having to drive more slowly in suburbs and on dangerous open roads. Climate change. Housing density. Breaking the cycles of violence and illness associated with poverty. And especially the rise of te reo Māori and all the other ways Māori get ‘special treatment’.”

This is what a journalist sounds like when he decides to “try and improve society in some form”. Suddenly, a whole host of controversial and complex issues, all of them likely to inspire heated debate, are strapped onto “advocacy” journalism’s Procrustean bed and made to fit. At least, that was the plan, but at some point during 2023 (could it have been around the time of the general election?) something went wrong. Somehow, the “shouty arguments of the fringe moved into the mainstream”.

Wilson’s solution? “First, we need to stake a bigger claim to the hearts and minds of people who believe in a decent, inclusive, cohesive society. Let’s be biased towards them.”

It’s difficult to translate these words into anything other than: “Let’s be biased in favour of the people who think like Simon.”

Undaunted, Wilson pushes on: “I believe we should do this because it’s the right thing to do, and also because it might even work. And yes, this is a constructive way of saying we should stop paying so much attention to all the angry people shouting at us.”

In other words, having weighed up all the factors involved in the public’s loss of trust and confidence in the news media; having discovered how many people believe themselves to be the victims of consistent media bias; having learned how many thousands of readers, listeners and viewers have already voted

Wilson’s think-piece is one of the most eloquent explanations for why fewer and fewer people trust the news media. Albeit unintentionally, he has revealed the critical challenge facing media owners – the seemingly ineradicable didacticism of their employees. These are no longer people afflicted with an insatiable curiosity to know what’s going on, but with a fixed determination to tell the world what it should think, and what it should do.

And it’s everywhere. In a widely-read post on The Free Press website, former senior executive at the USA’s National Public Radio, Uri Berliner, laments the American public’s loss of trust in the radio station that once boasted a huge and loyal audience encompassing listeners from across the political spectrum. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Berliner’s prescription for recovery is rather different from Wilson’s.

“With declining ratings, sorry levels of trust and an audience that has become less diverse over time, the trajectory for NPR is not promising. Two paths seem clear. We can keep doing what we’re doing, hoping it will all work out. Or we could start over, with the basic building blocks of journalism. We could face up to where we’ve gone wrong. News organizations don’t go in for that kind of reckoning. But there’s a good reason for NPR to be the first: we’re the ones with the word ‘public’ in our name.”

One of the constant refrains of those lamenting the loss of Newshub and the paring back of TVNZ’s news and current affairs is that it will be “bad for democracy”. Well, maybe. Is the single party-line communicated by the Chinese media considered “good” for democracy?

Public communication which tells only one story about any given issue and proposes only one solution has very little to do with democracy. What does sound like an invaluable adjunct to a democratic society, however, are journalists eager to publicise “angry people shouting” at the Powers That Be. And even more eager to discover why.

Meet Brett Harris, convenor Health and Safety Law committee

Sensibly, I drew my vision of life at the bar from such realistic portrayals as Rumpole of the Bailey, Boston Legal, the best scenes of the iconic Australian movie The Castle and, of course, Rake

I enjoy my work even if it appears to be unrelenting

Brenda Newth

Where do you work, what’s your role?

I am a barrister in Auckland, near Britomart.

I moved to the independent bar in July 2006 after working in a few boutique Auckland litigation firms, specialising in insurance work. Although I have been in a few chambers (most recently Quay Chambers), I moved into my own space overlooking the vibrant Britomart precinct in early 2017.

Where did you study?

The University of Canterbury with a few final Art History papers in Auckland.

Most people left Auckland for Otago and although I was approved for the halls of residence in Otago, I decided to go to Canterbury, which was fantastic. I graduated in 1995 with a BA/LLB (English literature and a bit of Classics).

What’s been your career to date?

I was admitted in 1995 and started work at Holmden Horrocks where I had persuaded the firm to consider a summer clerk role a few years before. I went on my OE in London in 1997 where I worked with a specialist (largely Kiwi) law firm in the City of London to acquire and lease the requisite land across the UK to set up the ‘One2One’ cellphone network.

In 1999 I joined Keegan Alexander to assist the inimitable Peter Spring with a large intellectual property/Anton Piller claim. We had a memorable two-week High Court trial with (now deceased) Robert Fardell QC, with Gerald (later Justice) Nation on the

other side. From about that time, I started specialising in health and safety work, especially fatalities, which was quite unusual at the time.

In July 2006, after about 10 years of practice (which I had concluded was the minimum period of litigation experience required), I decided to make the slightly bold move to become a barrister. Sensibly, I drew my vision of life at the bar from such realistic portrayals as Rumpole of the Bailey, Boston Legal, the best scenes of the iconic Australian movie The Castle and, of course, Rake. If you are a lawyer and you have not watched Rake (the first series was in 2010), I would recommend it as essential viewing.

I enjoy my work even if it appears to be unrelenting. I am very lucky with an amazing group of loyal clients (insurers, large corporates and individuals) who have, over the years, come to be friends.

How long have you been involved with The Law Association committees and which committees have you worked with?

I joined the Health and Safety Law committee when it was established in 2015, after being approached to get involved as the deputy convenor. I became the convenor a few years ago after Fletcher Pilditch KC, (now considered a friend after we were on opposite sides of the large Crafar farms and Milkpride animal welfare case) stepped down.

Continued on page 11

Brett Harris

Continued from page 10

The committees are advocacy groups, educators and support groups – all at once

Why is committee work important?

In my view, the legal profession plays an important role in this country in many ways. I think the many challenges of the covid-19 period reminded some of the profession and some of the public about the important roles we have in the administration of justice and the separation of powers, too.

The committee work of The Law Association is central to all it does, and The Law Association works very hard to make sure the committees can function efficiently and contribute in our various ways. The work is important because we pull together some of the most experienced people in certain areas, we review the practice of the law in that area, at the coal face, and we can be persuasive advocates for change, for continued improvement and for dialogue.

Some of the committees are even more commercial, producing important forms and precedents which are relied upon heavily by the profession and others.

How do The Law Association committees make a difference?

I suspect the true difference made will depend upon the composition and energy of the particular committee, the area of law and the profession’s needs.

I like to think The Law Association’s committees provide an important opportunity for the profession to get together and to speak with a relevant voice on important issues and topics. Those voices are often

Winning the Talent War

Strategies for Attracting and Nurturing Lasting Legal Talent

sought out in consultation phases, but the committees are proactive on important issues as they evolve, too. The committees are advocacy groups, educators and support groups – all at once.

How do you see the role of a committee convenor? What specific skills do you think a convenor needs?

Last winter, The Law Association held an educational evening for committee convenors. It focused on leadership skills, presentation styles and discussion. I learned that as convenors we have similar views and a few similar challenges. It was revealing to see how similar some of the issues were, across committees. There is an organisational aspect, of course, to bring the committee together and to facilitate discussions, but the role also requires energy and planning to make sure everyone on the committee has a voice and an opportunity to be engaged.

There is a need to make sure the engagement of committee members is real and helpful and it does require a little bit of creative thinking and active listening. Being a convenor has been interesting and not without a few challenges, but I have enjoyed it especially with the group we have together.

What is your biggest frustration as a convenor?

I think I am very lucky with our committee. We have a knowledgeable, engaged and experienced committee with members from a mixture of backgrounds, from the WorkSafe NZ as the regulator, current and former Crown prosecutors, defence and insurance lawyers and barristers.

Thinking on a recent challenge, our depth of specialty can create problems. For example, several of us (including me) were involved with, or briefed in, the legal cases arising from the tragedy on Whakaari/ White Island on 9 December 2019. These events have been interesting, and the case saw overlaps

with safety, outdoor adventure activities, regulatory prosecutions, diligent defence work, emergency management and the roles of coronial services and the police.

I confess it has been a bit frustrating that we, on the committee, have been slightly careful as the trial approached and as the decisions arose, not to offer too many collective thoughts on what had unfolded – as trial, sentencing and even appeal periods have been awaited. Personally, I declined calls from Sky News Australia to offer pre-trial thoughts on what might eventuate, given my role for Whakaari Management Ltd and the owners, for the first year of the investigation. The good news is that as these legal matters draw closer to a final conclusion, we will reflect on all that has unfolded and there is some relevant CPD in the works.

What’s been the most notable achievement or biggest focus of your committee over the past few years? Why was that important?

Reflecting on the last year or so, I am pleased with the external speakers we have invited to our meetings throughout the year. We were able to secure passionate and senior people from the main regulators: WorkSafe New Zealand, the Civil Aviation Authority and Maritime New Zealand. The dialogue with those making decisions (and those approving “enforceable undertakings”) was highly valuable.

We are also preparing to put forward a pilot of an expert witness program for HASANZ and NZISM experts. This course is aimed at providing experts with a real-world example of how evidence is offered in court in our jurisdiction. We hope to roll out that program in spring 2024.

Continued on page 16

FEATURED CPD

Navigating the law with generative AI

WEBINAR

ALL AREAS

ALL LEVELS

Webinar 1.5 CPD hours

Tuesday 30 April 12.30pm – 2pm

Price from $140 + GST

Presenters

Rosemary Wooders, partner, Bell Gully and Laura Chapman, head of pilot enablement, Air New Zealand

Commercial lease rent reviews

WEBINAR COMMERCIAL ALL LEVELS

Winning the talent war

WEBINAR RECRUITMENT MANAGEMENT

Webinar 1.5 CPD hours

Wednesday 1 May 12.30pm – 2pm

Price from $140 + GST

Presenters

Carmen Simmonds, Norris Ward McKinnon (5-Star Employer of Choice 2023), general manager and Kathryn Cross, Artemis Executive Recruitment, managing director

Generative AI is transforming the legal sector, providing customised solutions for legal queries, and simplifying document drafting processes for all lawyers. Along with these advancements, it's crucial to consider potential legal risks. Join our webinar to discover the transformative capabilities of generative AI and gain practical strategies for harnessing its benefits while managing legal risks. Reserve your place now to explore the opportunities and challenges posed by generative AI in legal practice.

Webinar 1.5 CPD hours

Tuesday 30 April 4pm – 5.30pm

Price $140 + GST

Presenters Reid Quinlan, registered valuer and director, Seagar & Partners (Auckland) Limited and Michelle Hill, partner, Dentons Kensington Swan

Join us as we uncover the intricacies of commercial lease rent reviews, led by expert speakers offering practical insights into the role of valuers, arbitration procedures and the impact of incentives and clauses on rental rates, among other things. Learn how to craft effective rent review clauses that secure favourable outcomes for your clients.

Attracting and retaining talent is critical for law firms in today’s highly competitive market but too many firms are ill-prepared for the challenge. By adopting the techniques presented in this webinar, law firm leaders can increase their chances of success.

Chair Simon Tupman, law firm management consultant

Excellence in legal writing workshop (Auckland)

WORKSHOP

ALL AREAS

ALL LEVELS

Workshop 3 CPD hours

Tuesday 7 May 9am – 12.15pm

Price from $375 + GST

Facilitator Andrea Ewing, Crown counsel, Crown Law Office (Criminal Team)

Join this hands-on workshop to master the art of legal writing by using concrete language, an active voice and brevity, along with “point-first advocacy” for direct, clear and compelling arguments.

LinkedIn for lawyers – advanced course

WEBINAR

ONLINE TOOLS

ALL LEVELS

Webinar 1.25 CPD hours

Wednesday 8 May 12.30pm – 1.45pm

Price from $120 + GST

Presenter Anne Casey, founder and director, Marketing Minds

Cradle to Grave 2024 Conference

Take your LinkedIn proficiency to the next level with this course designed for those seeking to maximise their LinkedIn impact. We’ll move beyond the basics and unlock the full potential of this powerful platform.

Conference Online and in person

Friday 17 May

Price from $800 + GST

Shaping Tomorrow –

Embracing Diversity and Driving Change

Our premier gathering for both general legal practitioners and specialists in the fields of property, family law, trusts, wills and estate planning is back for 2024. The conference has been designed to maximise engagement, learning and networking opportunities, offering a line-up of industry-leading speakers at the forefront of their practice areas. C2G 2024 is guaranteed to grow and enhance your professional knowledge.

Featured events

Connecting New Zealand lawyers

West Auckland Lawyers’ Lunch

Wednesday 8 May 12:30pm – 2pm

The Good Home Lincoln Road, 159 Lincoln Road, Henderson, Auckland 0610

North Shore Lawyers’ Lunch

Tuesday 28 May 12:30pm – 2pm

Franc’s Bar, The Strand, Takapuna, Auckland 0622

Breakfast with the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith

Watch this space

Details coming soon…

Upcoming

Soon to be added

June 13 | Breakfast with the Attorney-General, Judith Collins KC

July 4 | Wellington Breakfast with the Chief Justice, Dame Helen Winkelmann

Oct 9 | Albany Lawyers’ Lunch

Nov 14 | Central Auckland After 5

Nov 20 | Hamilton After 5

Book Here Events@thelawassociation.nz

JUNIOR SOLICITORS 2024

Blenheim’s largest law firm has 3 positions available for junior Solicitors –from Graduates (preferably with Profs) or applicants with around 2 years’ PQE.

This is a fantastic opportunity to live in a region with thriving wine and aquaculture industries; work alongside and learn from experienced Partners in Commercial and Litigation teams.

Come for the lifestyle – stay for law!

For more information or to apply, please email tthiel@gwlaw.co.nz or phone 027 230 2627

SOLICITOR

Required for busy North Shore property and general practice.

Minimum of 6 years’ PQE. Excellent prospects for the right person.

Remuneration negotiable. Please send application and full CV to info@lawfirm.co.nz.

National Opportunities for Senior Legal Leaders

A leading national firm is in growth mode and is seeking expressions of interest from:

• Current law firm partners

• Sole practitioners

• Small-to-medium-sized practices

With four office locations, the firm offers flexibility in terms of location and practice areas.

If you are ambitious, motivated and a high-performance operator, we would like to hear from you.

In the first instance please contact Steve Kennedy, Managing Director, EQ Consultants 021 223 2850 s.kennedy@eqconsultants.co.nz for a confidential discussion about the opportunity and about you.

Tony Horrocks is available for locum and part-time consultancy work (flexible as to location).

Many years’ experience, both as a sole practitioner and as a partner in a small law firm, in general practice, with particular expertise in trusts, estate administration, and business law.

Contact me by email: anthonycharleshorrocks@gmail.com or on mobile: 021 754312.

WILL INQUIRIES

Please refer to deeds clerk. Please check your records and advise The Law Association Inc. if you hold a will or testamentary disposition for any of the following people. If you do not reply within three weeks it will be assumed you do not hold or have never held such a document

LawNews: The no-hassle way to source missing wills for $80.50 (GST Included)

reception@thelawassociation.nz The Law Association Inc. PO Box 58, Shortland Street, DX CP24001, Auckland 1140 Ph: (09) 303 5270

BATEMAN

James Derek, also known as Derek

Bateman

• Late of 14 Christian Road, Swanson, Auckland

• Disability pensioner

• Aged 75 / Died 16’03’24

FORD

Darrin Steven also known as Sam

• Late of Hinau Street, New Lynn, Auckland

• Aged 60 / Died 05’04’24

HEUER

Wilfried

• St Christophers Home and Hospital, Papatoetoe, Auckland

• Aged 83 / Died 01’04’24

YAGI

Tadayoshi

• Late of Auckland

• Never in a legal relationship

• Retired

• Aged 80 / Died 07’03’24

Continued from page 11

The

committee work of The Law Association is central to all it does and The Law Association works very hard to make sure the committees can function efficiently

What’s the biggest issue facing your practice area at the moment? And how does that affect lawyers and their clients?

That question is challenging to answer and I am not sure there is one single issue facing our area of interest. There are issues about the modern profession, the best way to regulate our activities and there are ongoing funding challenges and hurdles across all areas of the law.

in The Law Association should be harnessed to strive (carefully) towards an ever-improving profession.

What is the biggest issue facing the legal profession right now?

Perhaps – a careful path towards 2050?

Over the past year, has your committee made submissions on a parliamentary bill or any consultation paper?

Unlike many committees, we are rarely offered opportunities to offer submissions or to consult on proposed regulations and legislation. We did look to engage in that area back in 2015 but the nature and speed of new regulations has left few opportunities to offer submissions. Hopefully, when consultation is sought in any area, we might be afforded more realistic timeframes to review and respond to proposed changes. There was a trend in recent years to offer only limited consultation windows for proposed changes, which is quite unhelpful.

What would you say to anyone thinking of becoming involved in a Law Association committee?

I would encourage people to get involved and make the most of it for themselves and for the profession. The interface with other like-minded colleagues is always engaging but there is also a bit of heavy lifting to be done.

In our area, I think the quality of investigations and the decisions made by regulators about enforcement action, education and prosecutions warrants much more thought. Most offences here are of strict liability. I agree that the purposes of the legislation are important. However, there is a temptation for many, including some judges, to apply a lens of hindsight to an accident and to ensure injured workers thereby receive access to a form of lump sum compensation/ reparation that is not necessarily available to other victims of “crime”. That is an uneasy juxtaposition for me, with pure criminal offences, convictions and an ACC regime which provides no fault compensation for all whilst removing litigation for lump sum personal injury claims. I am noticing an increase in the briefing of lawyers by victims and families and that can sometimes seed division. Personally, I agree that employers and all PCBUs (persons conducting business or undertakings) must do all they can to identify and eliminate hazards at work, but perhaps we need to remember that the risks in life and work are sometimes impossible to avoid altogether.

What’s the best kept secret about The Law Association?

Perhaps, the people. He tangata.

I think there is a great opportunity for The Law Association to play an ever more important role in advocacy for the profession, by the profession. The breadth of knowledge and the depth of skill of those

Have you done any media interviews/ provided any statements to the media in the past year as a committee convenor and spokesperson for ADLS/The Law Association?

No, but as I’ve said, our committee is often sought-out for comment in our area and the challenge can be that we are sometimes a little too close to be offering interviews on matters before the courts.

What is your vision for the legal profession in 2050?

Making sure we get our regulation right, that we look after our clients as well as possible and also ourselves, as lawyers. The work we do is rewarding and important. We should be very proud of what we do but it comes with an important set of duties. I hope we keep working to get the balance right for all of us.

What do you think The Law Association could do to improve its offering to members?

Interesting question. I would say to continue to recognise the hard work and the time volunteered by so many. ■

To find out more about the professional, collegiality, and networking opportunities associated with being involved in The Law Association committee work, contact Daniel.Conway@thelawassociation.nz or Moira.McFarland@thelawassociation.nz ■