LawNews - Issue 24

NEWS Jul 23, 2021 Issue 24

Inside ■ TRUST LAW

Trusts Act 2019: myths and misconceptions P03

■ LAW FIRMS/ TECHNOLOGY

Rethinking partnerships P06

Ten myths about the new adls.org.nz

TRUSTS ACT

Contents 03-04 DISCLOSURE TRUSTEES BENEFICIARIES

Myth-busting and the Trusts Act 2019

LawNews is an official publication of Auckland District Law Society Inc. (ADLS).

06-07 LAWYERS AI INNOVATION

Is the legal partnership model dead?

Editor: Jenni McManus Publisher: ADLS Editorial and contributor enquiries to: Jenni McManus 021 971 598 Jenni.Mcmanus@adls.org.nz Advertising enquiries to: Darrell Denney 021 936 858 Darrell.Denney@adls.org.nz

08 GENDER HONORIFICS COURTROOM

Goodbye to (some) courtroom honorifics

All mail to: ADLS, Level 4, Chancery Chambers, 2 Chancery Street, Auckland 1010 PO Box 58, Shortland Street DX CP24001, Auckland 1140, adls.org.nz

03-04 10-11 FEATURED CPD

LawNews is published weekly (with the exception of a small period over the Christmas holiday break) and is available free of charge to members of ADLS, and available by subscription to non-members for $140 (plus GST) per year.

To subscribe, please email reception@adls.org.nz.

12 CPD IN BRIEF

Photo: gustavofrazao / Getty Images

13 EVENTS

Test your knowledge of the new Trusts Act

©COPYRIGHT and DISCLAIMER Material from this publication must not be reproduced in whole or part without permission. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and, unless stated, may not reflect the opinions or views of ADLS or its members.

Responsibility for such views and for the correctness of the information within their articles lies with the authors.

Cover: Surasak Suwanmake / Getty Images

02

Jul 23 2021 Issue 24

TRUST LAW

Myths and misunderstandings about the Trusts Act 2019 One of the most discussed and misunderstood changes brought in by the Trusts Act is about the provision of basic trust information and further trust information

initial settlement) was the relevant statutory limitation.

Moving forward, significant care is required to identify the initial settlement as s 15(2) of the Trusts Act provides a trust created in accordance with s 15 of the Act commences only when a trustee holds property of the trust.

This means there can be no trust to acquire or receive further assets until the trust commences following fulfilment of the requirements of s 15 of the Trusts Act.

There is a duty to disclose basic trust information One of the most discussed and misunderstood changes brought in by the Trusts Act is about the provision of basic trust information and further trust information. See ss 49 to 53 of the Trusts Act. Importantly, there is no duty of disclosure; rather, there are presumptions that must be determined by reference to the procedure in s 53 of the Act, referencing the factors (a) to (m) that the trustee ‘must consider’.

Vicki Ammundsen The newness of the Trusts Act 2019 and the complexities of trust law generally mean myths and misconceptions about the Act abound.

Here, we deal with 10 of the most common misunderstandings about the Act and its application to practice.

Disclosure is made only once The Trusts Act applies only to trusts settled on or after 30 January 2021

Vicki Ammundsen The Trusts Act came into effect on 30 January this year but it has far-reaching retrospective However, it is important to appreciate that the consequences for trusts settled before this date. procedure available under the Trusts Act applies only Section 5(3) of the Trusts Act provides that the Act where the document of removal was signed after the applies “to all express trusts despite anything to the Trusts Act came into full force and effect. This was contrary in the terms of a trust”, with certain limited confirmed in Camroc Lewis exceptions. The application of the Act to all trusts requires Many trustees believe Trust v Lewis NZHC [2021] 585 at [14] to [19]. careful review of express trusts that once they have existing before 30 January 2021 made disclosure to The initial settlement to ensure compliance. the beneficiaries does not need to be The term ‘express trust’, identified so long as defined in s 12 of the Trusts of the basic trust there is a subsequent Act, encompasses discretionary information, they are settlement of a trust family trusts.

Vesting orders are no longer required

off-the-hook and have no further reporting obligations. This is, of course, wrong

Another common misconception about the provisions of the Trust Act is that vesting orders are no longer required. Sections 116 and 117 of the Act has introduced changes to the way trust property is divested and vested in situations where a trustee has been appointed, retired or removed.

asset

The initial settlement onto a trust is often a nominal $10 or $20. However, this settlement is an essential element of trust validity.

In JEF v GJO [2012] NZHC 1021, an appeal of a Family Court decision challenging the validity of a trust due to the absence of the initial settlement, the High Court held that the applicable timeframe to remedy the omission (of payment of the

Many trustees believe that once they have made disclosure to the beneficiaries of the basic trust information, they are off-the-hook and have no further reporting obligations. This is, of course, wrong.

The disclosure of information to beneficiaries is an ongoing exercise. Trusts are not static and s 51(4) of the Trusts Act requires the trustees to consider at reasonable intervals whether they should be making basic trust information available.

There is also the requirement in s 51(3), which provides that basic trust information includes the “occurrence of, and details of, each appointment, removal and retirement of a trustee as it occurs”.

The maximum duration means you can increase the trust period by resettlement Section 16(1) of the Trusts Act provides for the maximum duration of trust to be 125 years. However, the maximum duration does not override any trust period or mechanism in the trust deed.

Importantly, s 17 provides that the maximum duration ‘rule’ applies to resettlements and specifies that where property is held on a trust to which s 16(1) applies (the maximum duration of a trust is 125 years), the maximum duration that may elapse between property

Continued on page 04 03

Continued from page 03

being settled on the first trust and being finally distributed is 125 years.

If the trust deed does not have a power of variation, this will be inferred for the purposes of modifying and excluding default duties Sections 29 to 38 set out the default duties that must be performed by trustees unless modified or excluded. This means considerable care is required to read trust deeds in light of the default powers.

Importantly, in the absence of any power to vary the trust deed, the Trusts Act does not provide a mechanism for variation to modify or exclude any default duties.

If a trust adviser is not a trustee, there are no implications for failure to meet the obligations to alert settlers to the modification or exclusion of default duties and exemption and indemnity clauses in a trust deed

Public Trust can be appointed to any trust by the trustees or a beneficiary whenever it is necessary or desirable to appoint a new trustee

The Trusts Act requires that there must be an independent trustee

Vicki Ammundsen is a director of Vicki Ammundsen Trust Law Limited ■

The Trusts Act does not specify any requirement for

Become an ADLS Member Membership offers a range of benefits, including: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

LawNews and the ADLS Monday e-Bulletin Collegiality events available at special member rates A variety of CPD activities all at special member rates Eligibility to apply for ADLS Committees Enhanced Airpoints Dollars™ earn rate on eligible ADLS purchases Member pricing on textbooks and related products at the ADLS Bookstore, and more

adls.org.nz/join

04

independent trustees. However, consideration must be given to the default duties in ss 29 to 38, which apply unless modified or excluded.

Separately, who the trustees of any trust are should reflect the nature of the trust’s assets and the beneficiaries and fitness for purpose of each trustee.

Advisers have obligations irrespective of whether the adviser is named as a trustee in the trust deed or is later appointed as a trustee.

It is correct that there are no financial penalties provided for in the Trusts Act. However, in its Review of the Law of Trusts, the Law Commission recommended that “the professional bodies for lawyers, accountants and financial advisers should develop guidance, perhaps in their codes of conduct, to help ensure that their members develop appropriate practices.

“A breach of the statutory obligation to explain exemption clauses would likely result in disciplinary sanctions by the relevant regulatory body.” The commission noted that this is similar to the approach taken by the Law Commission for England and Wales in Trustee Exemption Clauses (Law Com No 301, 2006).

membership@adls.org.nz

09 303 5270

There is no provision in the Trusts Act (or elsewhere) that compels the appointment of Public Trust as a trustee by trustees or beneficiaries. Section 114 of the Trusts Act provides for the court to appoint Public Trust. However, before making such an appointment, Public Trust must have an opportunity to be heard on the matter. ■

Jul 23 2021 Issue 24

Letters to

NEWS

the editor

Jul 09, 2021 Issue 22

Inside ■ HUMAN RIGHTS

The problem with hate speech legislation P03

■ THE COURTS

Two newbie judges’ stories P06

An unhappy camper I would like to lodge a complaint about the cover article in today’s issue.

This article displayed appalling journalism. The article is unbalanced, lacking in discussion with actual experts on the issue, inflammatory (including the offensive cover page) and is frankly shocking coverage of an issue of genuine public importance.

This article constitutes inappropriate use of your resources, including my annual membership fee, and reflects very poorly on the legal profession, which you purport to represent. You could have commissioned a useful, sceptical article that progressed the discussion in an appropriate manner. I don’t normally stick my neck out but this piece crossed the line.

I look forward to your response.

Tamara Liebman Principal calibrate legal

The editor responds It is difficult to know where to start. The writer offers no details or evidence for her complaints, which might shed some light as to why she is so ‘shocked’ and ‘appalled’ – and, in particular, why she thinks the article ‘reflects very badly on the legal profession’.

And it is difficult to understand why she is so offended by the cover image as book-burning has been the hallmark of dictators throughout history. On our cover, of course, the image is used to symbolise the worrying rise of ‘cancel culture’ – the modern equivalent of bookburning – where people are shouted down, hounded, abused and even accused of being members of ‘hate groups’ by those who don’t agree with their views. Our cover was particularly apt because cancel culture and an alleged hate group were at the centre of the High Court decision with which we began our story. Quite rightly, the judge rejected the bid by a local council to ‘de-platform’ a women’s group which wanted to hold a public meeting about a proposed legislative change. He also said it was clear it wasn’t a hate group.

Turning now to the writer’s claims that the article lacked balance, the author sought opinion for all sides of the political spectrum. We discovered scant support for the government’s proposed hate speech

Be very afraid of

legislation: lefties and rightHATE SPEECH LAW wing commenters were all singing from the same song sheet. The fact that neither the Prime Minister nor her Minister of Justice could, when pressed, define the scope and boundaries of a proposed new Crimes Act offence that will include the power to imprison people for up to three years is beyond problematic. As lawyer Stephen Franks points out, it is inconsistent with the rule of law as citizens are entitled to laws that clear, written down and knowable in advance.

I reject your comment about ‘actual experts’. Chris Trotter has been commenting on political matters for more than 40 years, Stephen Franks is a fine lawyer with decades of experience in the commercial world and Professor Moon, a distinguished historian, is exactly the type of expert who should be commenting on hate speech and the fact that no jurisdiction anywhere has been able to define it. And, in last week’s issue, ADLS President Marie Dyhrberg QC, ADLS Council member JulieAnne Kincade QC and academic and human rights expert Pene Mathew had their say. Dyhrberg and Kincade strongly oppose the proposed legislation, as do other members of the ADLS Criminal Law committee.

I am at a loss to understand why you think all this ‘reflects poorly on the legal profession’. In my opinion, the profession is acting exactly as it should: calling out the government for a poorly-conceived proposal that the vast majority of New Zealanders appear loath to see passed into law.

Finally, it is not clear what expertise the writer has to level claims of ‘appalling journalism’ against the article’s author and, by implication, the editor of LawNews. Yes, some journalism is appalling but this article is not an example of that. ‘Appalling journalism’ occurs when reporters fail to understand their role in a democracy: to hold to account those who would seek power over us. It occurs when reporters, out of fear, ignorance or laziness, fail to ask the right questions, preferring instead to regurgitate press releases and act as the government’s stenographers.

And it occurs when journalists display political bias, not just in what they publish but also in what they choose not to publish.

For all these reasons, I reject your complaint. adls.org.nz

Continued on page 08

05

LAW FIRMS/TECHNOLOGY

Is the legal partnership model dead?

The problem is that law firms are price-takers because the partnership structure doesn’t enable you to raise capital. That model makes law firms quite vulnerable

Are legal partnerships ready for the funeral pyre? The UK Law Society’s Future Worlds 2050 project has predicted that AI and other technologies could kill off the partnership model within the next five years. The project was set up to encourage ‘raw, frank and honest discussions’ around future client needs and to postulate the legal business models that might meet them.

The report offers both conservative and disruptive visions of the future, and asks how a profession proudly rooted in history can develop and convey future-proofed agility. The disruptive model suggests legal partnerships are on their way out and will dissolve by 2026. The model has survived for centuries but that doesn’t mean it’s well-equipped to cope with the digital era.

It’s already happening, says Arran Hunt, now a partner at Stace Hammond but previously operated his business as a company. The partnership model is old-fashioned and being replaced with incorporated companies, he says, which will be more difficult for the larger law firms where partnership is entrenched.

“Lawyers are very, very slow-moving,” Hunt says. “The partnership structure is in place because it’s what everyone’s used to. It goes back to the idea that you have clients for life.

So you buy into a partnership and those clients will always be there. You’ll get their business forever and you trust your other partners [will] keep doing their work. Most new small firms are now companies. It’s simpler to do.”

In the UK, law firms have been listing on the London Stock Exchange since 2015, after the passing of the Legal Services Act 2007. The UK report notes there will be new entrants to the legal market and more multidisciplinary models.

“What is the new value chain and the role of providers of legal products and services in that value chain?” the 06

Photo: Nora Carol Photography / Getty Images

Diana Clement

authors asked.

Even if some legal practitioners are foregoing the partnership model, it will take a lot of courage from both the profession in the regulator, the NZ Law Society, to take the best of what’s happening internationally and bring it to New Zealand, says Helen Mackay, director of law firm Juno.

The partnership model is problematic because it lacks independent governance. Just look at the cultural issues in the profession that the New Zealand Law Society is dealing with currently, Mackay says. “[That] could be ameliorated if you actually move to more of a standard corporate model for law firms.”

Continued on page 07

I think the profession would be better served by rethinking the rules around partnership to enable legal firms to compete in a disintermediated environment

Jul 23 2021 Issue 24

Continued from page 06

The alternative isn’t pretty either. Commercial opportunities are arising in the legal tech space, the report noted under a heading ‘friend or foe?’

Fisher believes AI poses a real threat because those with Sustainability issue the greatest investment, and the greatest smarts – those that can marry money, innovation and the ability to move quickly – Craig Fisher, a consultant at RSM NZ, has chaired more than are likely to win. It’s like technology companies, where moving one accounting firm and is a member of the ADLS Council.

Fisher says he’s vexed by the sustainability of the partnership fast and moving big creates winners. That’s why we’ve got Google, Amazon and Apple. model, although he also wonders where “If [smaller law firms don’t] have the artificial intelligence sits on the hype index.

The partnership dollars and the smarts and the ability to do The law and accounting partnership model is that, then they almost become the product model relies on training good and bright for someone else.” young people, who become the engine room problematic The big firms, however, are likely to have of the business and ultimately buy out the because it lacks sufficient size to survive changing business old partners. independent models and new market entrants, Fisher says.

“Then if AI takes out a big chunk of governance “Something like a Chapman Tripp, hopefully, the income-earning practice that allowed is big enough and specialised enough and you to go out and employ the next juniors, has enough collateral behind it [to survive]. you have a problem,” he says. “That’s the There is an argument that says the big are biggest disrupter of the traditional model of just going to get bigger. But then not everyone wants to work accounting [and law] practices.” for big.”

Generational change is also going to be an issue, say both Mackay and Fisher. Mackay says: “The model currently is very much on a pyramid, where you need a large number of juniors Disintermediated lawyers to come in to feed the machine.”

Entrepreneur Andrew Barnes is someone else who believes Societal change, combined with technology, means the partnership model is outdated. Legal tech, like ‘death not too many juniors want to commit their 20s to the tech’ – the area he operates in – is starting to eat into law service of their firm, she says. “I see a number of millennial firms’ bread and butter. lawyers choosing to opt out. They don’t want to sacrifice “You’re getting an awful lot of innovation and the use of their wellbeing for a law firm [where] they may never make technology to provide the very basics of law,” he says. “The partner.” problem is that [law firms] are price-takers because the The risk/reward model is not balanced in younger lawyers’ partnership structure doesn’t enable you to raise capital. That favour, adds Fisher. Yet for existing partners, the issue will model makes law firms quite vulnerable.” be that they’ve paid significant sums of money to buy into Law firms or disruptors operating as a company can partnerships. “When the model changes, and if you’ve got the raise money to develop or buy tech that will disintermediate newer people coming through who don’t want to put up all lawyers. “The partnership has got to get all the partners to sit that capital, then at some point, someone loses.” together to try and raise the money,” says Fisher. “There isn’t Fisher says the big lesson for both professions is about the ability to go to third parties.” recognising what’s coming. Transitioning to new models won’t AI is coming, Barnes says. He cites the example of Arken. be easy; it requires organisation, investment capital, skills and Legal, a company he founded that provides estate-planning critical mass. document automation. The service has been used to create Most law firms are one-and two-partner practices. “If you more than six million wills globally. “It means you can use this were to even think that a listed model was the answer, you’ve model to write wills, enduring powers of attorney and more got to roll up a ridiculously large number of small entities,” he that are always consistent, that avoid the errors that can says. “I’ve been through that a number of times. It’s a longcome from individual lawyers trying to draft something. term dating dance, and a lot of hard work.

“The point about this is that we are selling into the law “Even if the firms are really aligned and it looks on paper firms who once upon a time were the subject matter experts. like it should make perfect sense, you’ve still got individuals Now we are the subject matter experts.” and egos wanting to be Napoleon of their own two kilometres.

That is a real impediment for a lot of [the small] legal and Continued on page 09 accounting firms.”

The central issue that, according to the UK report, will drive change is the introduction of AI (artificial intelligence) for repetitive and routine legal work.

Craig Fisher

Helen Mackay

Arran Hunt

Andrew Barnes

07

THE COURTS

Gender honorifics no longer needed in court Jenni McManus Female counsel will no longer be required to use an honorific when introducing themselves to the court.

While male counsel have traditionally introduced themselves by surname only, female practitioners have in the past been instructed effectively to make known their marital status.

The ADLS Newly Suited committee wrote to Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann earlier this year, saying this practice was outdated and unnecessary, and needed to change. Justice Winkelmann said she had already asked a judicial committee to address the issue, and the committee has subsequently agreed.

Gender-based honorifics are no longer required when counsel introduce themselves to the court.

Newly Suited committee convenor and ADLS Council member Ellen Snedden is keen for counsel to be aware that they now have a choice about how much personal information they disclose.

“Now that the judiciary and other institutions are embracing the idea that gendered honorifics are

no longer necessary, it is important that we adopt and implement this in practice,” she says. “Junior practitioners in particular should be taught that despite what gender or marital status they affiliate with, it does not have to be declared.

“Marital status and gender are irrelevant factors when acting as an advocate or practitioner unless you choose to disclose that information on your own accord – for example, for the purposes of building rapport with a client. How or if you define yourself is your choice and should not be imposed upon you.”

The committee says a clear practice guide needs to be provided. It suggest the following wording: “All counsel should introduce themselves by surname and with an honorific or title if desired. Counsel who do not choose an honorific or title will be addressed by the court and other counsel as ‘Mr’ for men and ‘Ms’ for women.”

While the Newly Suited committee acknowledges there is a wide range of approach among judges, female committee members say they have been

in courts recently where they have introduced themselves by surname, only to have the court inquiring: “Is that Mrs, or Miss?”

There is no practice note on the custom but committee members have seen it in various forms, including: ■ teachings at law schools; ■ guidance handed down (formally and informally) within law firms; and ■ practice papers given to students during the professionals courses, such as the College of Law’s Court etiquette, procedure and protocol which states: ■ If you are a male practitioner, tell the bench your surname only. You do not preface your surname with the title ‘Mr’. Note, however, that after that, other counsel and the judge will refer to male practitioners as Mr X, not just by the practitioner’s surname.

■ Female practitioners must advise the bench of the title they wish the court to use: ‘Ms’, ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs’.

Continued from page 05

More disappointment I’ve become increasingly disappointed in the unbalanced and partisan nature of much of the content in ADLS LawNews but the lead article in this week’s edition reaches new lows. Bizarrely after asking “what do the legal fraternity and other free speech advocates make of it all?” the article only quotes one lawyer and that is a former politician known to be on very much on the right of this debate. There is no balance to this piece whatsoever.

This kind of content being put out by ADLS is an embarrassment and makes it an organisation that I do not want to be associated with. As a result, I would like to both inquire about cancelling my membership of ADLS and to make a complaint about the editorial policy at ADLS LawNews.

Jennifer Braithwaite Barrister

08

The editor responds Again, the writer offers no specific examples of what she means by ‘unbalanced’ and ‘partisan’ coverage; nor does she offer anything to support her claim that LawNews is an ‘embarrassment’ or to whom.

Over the past week I have reviewed every issue of the publication since I became editor in February 2019 and cannot find a single example in a news story where issues were not dealt with fairly, with a wide range of opinion being sought and published.

The fact that you might not like some of these opinions does not mean an article is unbalanced or partisan. It seems to me that rather than wanting to distance yourself from ideas that make you uncomfortable or you find repugnant, you might, as a lawyer, want to inform yourself of a wide range of opinion on any given topic. Your clients deserve nothing less.

For information about our editorial policy, please see our response to the previous letter-writer. ■

Jul 23 2021 Issue 24

Continued from page 07

Clients pay their lawyers for their intellectual property, Barnes says. When others own that IP, it cheapens and weakens the law firm’s position.

The threat is particularly marked in commoditised areas of the law, the UK report notes. Barnes adds: “Now is the time for [the law profession] to revisit structures to continue to be relevant and be able to compete.”

No new models The issue is that most aren’t looking to change. Mackay says she doesn’t hear much discussion in New Zealand about innovative new law models. “I think there’s probably still a willingness to accept the status quo. And I would really love to see the more sophisticated legal services [users], in particular, really push quite hard to purchase those services through some of these different models.”

It will, however, take a lot of courage from both the profession and the regulator to take the best The partnership of what’s happening internationally and bring it to model is New Zealand, Mackay says. problematic Asked if the legal profession is nimble enough, Barnes cites the taxi industry, saying it was once because it lacks highly regulated. “We thought it had a very stable independent structure. Then along came Uber.” governance The licensing regime protected taxi drivers like the New Zealand Law Society protects lawyers, he says. “And then somebody comes in and goes ‘I don’t give a sh**’. That’s the problem the law faces.

You can keep standing like King Cnut saying, ‘so far but no further’. The reality is that’s not going to work.

“You’ve got to make some decisions. I think the profession would be better served by rethinking the rules around partnership to enable legal firms to compete in a [disintermediated] environment. AI is going to come in and start eating their lunch.”

Mackay also questions whether the time-based charging model needs to be replaced. “When you have incentives for professional services that the longer it takes, the more complex it is made [means] the larger the fee, I think that’s problematic.” We are used to knowing how much a service will cost before we pay for it, she says.

Barnes agrees. “It’s also a model that’s linked to time. Competition is coming in a different direction. The law has to rethink itself.” ■

SENIOR OR STAFF SOLICITOR Based in Rotorua Are you interested in working in an environment that requires a sound knowledge of legal and social issues? Do you have good technical legal skills and a commitment to professionalism and delivering social justice?

Our working environment is stimulating, diverse and delivers services to a wide client group. You must be highly motivated, creative and committed to professional and personal excellence.

A good sense of humour is a must and we work in a familyoriented environment.

Rotorua District Community Law Centre aims to meet the unmet legal needs of people in the Rotorua, Murupara, Minginui and Taupo region, to increase awareness about legal rights and responsibilities and to promote self-reliance and access to justice.

All our staff need a strong understanding of the work of Community Law, the community we serve – the issues and the barriers.

To be successful in this position you will possess:• The ability to practise as a solicitor in New Zealand • Commitment to Te Tiriti O Waitangi and the needs of Māori • Expertise in employment law as well as general areas of law • Sound understanding of social issues and a commitment to social justice • The ability to relate to a wide range of people • Commitment to the needs of low income and marginalised communities • Commitment to working as a team and the ability to support team members • A pragmatic and creative approach to problem solving and dispute resolution • Excellent interpersonal skills and oral and written communication skills • A full unrestricted New Zealand driver’s licence

Transition Opportunity in Whanganui An unexpected family health issue has made me bring forward my planning towards handing over my small but well-established law firm to a new owner.

The firm handles a wide range of work with a specialty in immigration.

The vacancy is for a full-time role but we would be happy to consider part-time for the right applicant.

Applications close 26th July 2021 – please send a covering letter and your CV to the Manager Ellie Herbert at Rotorua District Community Law Centre ellie.herbert@rdclc.co.nz Copies of the position description are also available.

This creates the opportunity for a lawyer already qualified or close to being qualified to practise on their own account to step into an existing business with an existing client base.

Send expressions of interest in confidence to my direct email: Peter@robinsonassociates.nz

09

FEATURED CPD

FINAL NOTICE

CLIENTS MARKETS RELATIONSHIPS

Business evolution in a changing world Workshop 2 CPD hrs Thurs 29 July 9am – 11.15am Presenters Katie Gray, executive coach, lawyer and founder of Principals of Practice and Kirsten Hodgson, life coach and business development consultant, Kaleidoscope Marketing and Coaching

How to conduct parole hearings CRIMINAL PAROLE PRACTICAL

How to attract clients, expand markets and deepen relationships In a competitive legal market and amid rapid change, disruption and innovation, lawyers need to remain relevant, valued and trusted advisers to their clients. If you want to attract more of your ideal clients, appeal to new markets or deepen relationships with existing clients, there are some coaching skills and approaches you can use.

Limited spaces available.

FIND OUT MORE

In Person | Live Stream 1.5 CPD hrs Thurs 5 August 4pm – 5.30pm Presenters Emma Priest, barrister; Lucy Smith, barrister and Jim van Rensburg, registered clinical psychologist Chair Marie Dyhrberg QC, President, ADLS

This will be a practical session on how to be counsel in parole hearings and a refresher for those who have not done them for a while. Attendees will be given a set of sample documents, including legal aid amendments to grant, sample submissions and sample psychological reports.

IN PERSON

LIVE STREAM

A guide to summary judgment and strike out TACTICS STRATEGY PROCESS

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Tues 10 August 4pm – 5.30pm Presenters Judge Paul Kellar and Blair Keown, partner, Bell Gully

Providing both judicial insights and those of counsel, this seminar addresses the application process for both summary judgment and strike out, the practical and tactical advantages of each procedure, how best to advance or defend a case, strategic considerations including alternative approaches, best practice and costs.

FIND OUT MORE 10

Jul 23 2021 Issue 24

adls.org.nz/cpd

Personal effectiveness: improve your productivity

Workshop 4 CPD hrs Thurs 12 August 9am – 1.15pm Presenter Tony Gardner, managing director, Archetype Leadership + Teams

PRODUCTIVITY PERFORMANCE TOOLS

cpd@adls.org.nz

09 303 5278

Reflecting on your goals for this year?

Are you performing at your peak? Is there room to improve your work methods?

Returning for 2021, this well-received workshop offers a range of personal effectiveness insights and tools to help increase your productivity and return-oneffort at work. It is facilitated by a leading high-performance consultant.

Limited spaces available.

FIND OUT MORE

Expert evidence on memory: when to use it and why MEMORY EXPERT RELIABILITY

In Person | Live Stream 2 CPD hrs Tues 7 September 5pm – 7.15pm Presenters Rob Harrison, barrister, Inangahua Chambers and Dr Rachel Zajac, expert witness and Professor of Psychology, University of Otago | Te Whare Wānanga o Otāgo Chair Judge David Sharp

A case can turn on memory, so understanding the science, how it works and when to engage an expert are vital. This seminar will help you develop your understanding of this complex and key area, so you are better placed to make decisions for you and your client.

IN PERSON

Cybersecurity: a guide for law firms THREATS DEFENCES BREACH

In Person | Live Stream 1.5 CPD hrs Tues 14 September 4pm – 5.30pm Presenters Lloyd Gallagher, principal, Gallagher & Co; Arran Hunt, partner, Stace Hammond; Edwin Lim, partner, Hudson Gavin Martin and Campbell McKenzie, director, Incident Response Solutions

IN PERSON

LIVE STREAM

The threat to your cybersecurity is real; the impacts of a breach are significant and wide-ranging. Could your firm weather the loss of information, money, time and trust?

Our panel will help you to bolster your defences.

LIVE STREAM 11

CPD IN BRIEF

When an inspector comes knocking

In Person | Live Stream 1.5 CPD hrs Tues 17 August 4pm – 5.30pm Presenters Tim Clarke, partner, Bell Gully and David Collins, team leader – Enforcement, Regulatory & Enforcement, Legal Services, Auckland Council

Clients are exposed to significant liability under resource management and safety legislation for environmental and safety incidents. What should you advise a client to do when an incident occurs? Is your client required to notify the regulator and, if so, when?

IN PERSON

Medically assisted dying

In Person | Live Stream 2 CPD hrs Thurs 19 August 2pm – 4.15pm Presenters Grant Illingworth QC; Richard McLeod; Dr Jeanne Snelling and Dr Jane Casey

The End of Life Choice Act 2019 comes into force on 6 November 2021.

Hear from our panel of lawyers, academics and a psychogeriatrician who will unpack the Act and the corresponding process, offer insights into its implementation, consider capacity and other clinical challenges, and outline some of the uncertainties, red flags and thorny issues.

Chair Professor Kate Diesfeld, Professor of Law, AUT and Chair, AUT Ethics Committee IN PERSON

Class and funded litigation

Seminar & Live Stream 1.5 CPD hrs Tues 24 August 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Paul Collins; Philip Skelton QC; Angela Parlane and Jonathan Woodhams

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Thurs 26 August 12pm – 1.30pm Presenters Katie Gray, executive coach, lawyer and founder of Principals of Practice and Carmel Byrne, partner, Stepshift

LIVE STREAM

Knowing your professional obligations The rapid growth in class and funded litigation has exposed issues and challenges not encountered in regular litigation and where the Conduct and Client Care Rules do not always fit neatly. This seminar is intended to help lawyers navigate this difficult and potentially perilous field.

IN PERSON

Preventing employee burnout

LIVE STREAM

LIVE STREAM

Providing high-quality advice while meeting client demands on cost and timeframe are difficult for lawyers, especially when you add a global pandemic into the mix. In this webinar, the presenters will share recent research and findings on the causes of employee burnout (including remote working burnout experienced as a result of Covid-19) and ways legal leaders can mitigate this risk.

FIND OUT MORE

Registrations closing soon...

Privacy Kōrero | Tuesday 27 July | 12.00pm – 1.30pm Bright-line: Coming into the light | Tuesday 3 August | 12.00pm – 1.00pm To register or find out more information, click the link above.

12

Jul 23 2021 Issue 24

Events Featured events

Connecting New Zealand Lawyers

Hamilton sundowner Wednesday 4 August 2021, 5.30pm – 7.30pm Gothenburg, 17 Grantham Street, Hamilton, Waikato Learn More

Christchurch breakfast with the Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann Thursday 19 August 2021, 7.15am – 8.30am The George, 50 Park Terrace, Christchurch Learn More

ADLS Newly Suited Meet the QCs evening Wednesday 25 August 2021, Stanbeth House, 28 Customs Street East, Auckland CBD

Upcoming August

Wednesday 4 | Hamilton sundowner Wednesday 11 | Ponsonby lawyers’ lunch, Auckland Thursday 19 | Christchurch breakfast with the Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann Wednesday 25 | ADLS Newly Suited meet the QCs evening, Auckland

September

Wednesday 8 | Albany lawyers’ lunch, Auckland Thursday 16 | ADLS annual breakfast with the Attorney-General, Auckland Wednesday 29 | ADLS New Plymouth sundowner

Soon to be added:

September | Auckland Central lawyers’ lunch September | Rotorua lawyers’ lunch October | Tauranga lawyers’ lunch October | ADLS annual golf tournament November | Hawkes Bay lawyers’ lunch

Learn More

ADLS annual breakfast with the Attorney-General Thursday 16 September 2021, 7.15am – 8.30am The Northern Club, 19 Princes Street, Auckland Learn More

Book Here

events@adls.org.nz

adls.org.nz

13

ĀKARANA CHAMBERS | HIGH STREET

WILL INQUIRIES Please refer to deeds clerk. Please check your records and advise ADLS 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@adls.org.nz

ADLS, PO Box 58, Shortland Street,

DX CP24001, Auckland 1140

Fax: (09) 309 3726

An additional member is sought to join several experienced barristers and junior barristers in our refurbished, light-filled, contemporary, collegial High Street chambers. On offer is a medium-size office at a highly competitive rate that would suit a range of barristers including a junior barrister.

The modern office amenities include a large meeting room with harbour views, kitchenette, adjacent car-parking building and availability for secretarial and junior barrister support.

Terms negotiable include monthly tenancy.

Please contact: Alex McDonald | alex@amcdonald.co.nz Stuart Ryan | stuart@stuartryan.co.nz www.akaranachambers.co.nz

(09) 303 5270

Intermediate Litigator AL-CHALABI Maksuid Mahmud Selim

MATARORIA Te Kotahi Kennie Herbert

• Late of 1/57 Moore Street, Howick, Auckland • Widower • Retired • Aged 68 / Died between 25’04’21 and 05’05’21

• Late of Papakura, Auckland • Never in a legal relationship • Truck Driver • Aged 55 / Died 16’01’21

BOCOCK John Wilfred • Late of Pakuranga Park Village, Fortunes Road, Half Moon Bay, Auckland • Single • Retired • Aged 86 / Died 16’02’21 BROWN Alefe Mika, also known as, BROWN, Alfie Mika • Late of 54 Othello Drive, Clover Park, Auckland • Machine Operator • Aged 70 / Died 10’03’21 LATU Tevita Naikaki • Late of 2 Thelma Road, Mangawhai Heads • Retired Social Worker • Aged 70 / Died 20’06’21

14

SINGH Chamkaur • Late of Takanini, Auckland, resided in Flatbush, Auckland • Aged 65 / Died 04’01’21 VAITOHI Latu Ha’amoa • Late of 1 Tamariki Avenue, Kelston, Auckland 0602 • Married • Commercial Cleaner • Aged 60 / Died 16’05’21 YAMAMOTO Noboru • Late of 1/40 Strong St, St Johns, Auckland • Married • Company Director • Aged 70 / Died 01’05’21

An opportunity exists for an intermediate litigator to join my chambers either as a full-time employee or as an independent self-employed barrister.

I have a range of interesting work including arbitration, commercial, family property, trust, and estate matters.

You will: - have advocacy experience - have excellent research skills - be well organised and numerate

- a current practising certificate - have excellent interpersonal skills - have superior tech skills.

Remuneration and terms will be commensurate with experience and suitability.

Commendably brief expressions of interest should be sent with your academic records to david.connor@davidconnor.co.nz before Wednesday, 28 July 2021.

Chancery Chambers office for rent Three office spaces are available in the heritage Chancery Chambers building on the corner of Chancery and O’Connell Streets.

12.27sqm net located on the fifth floor, internal facing.

■

21.16sqm net located on the fifth floor, consisting of two smaller adjoining offices, internal facing.

■

33.71sqm net located on the third floor of the O’Connell Street side of building.

■

Opex includes reception to greet clients/receive couriers, kitchen facilities, copy room access and use of shared meeting rooms.

Please contact Krystal Marshall on (09) 303 5277 or krystal.marshall@adls.org.nz for more information

Jul 23 2021 Issue 24

LAWYER In the winter of 1921...

Sir Vincent Meredith was Crown Solicitor for Auckland and busy establishing what is now known as Meredith Connell.

on friday 13 august 2021...

Meredith Connell will celebrate the firm’s first 100 years.

MC’s 100th Anniversary Pō Whakanui is a thank you to our team and alumni for making us who we are today.

It will be held at Tāmaki Paenga Hira, Auckland War Memorial Museum, from 7pm.

If you are MC alumni and wish to attend, please RSVP to sarah.lawrence@mc.co.nz

by Friday 30 July.

Numbers are limited.

We are looking for a Lawyer with a minimum of 2 years’ PQE to join our team. The role is to assist and work with a Director, so is a great opportunity for you to develop your skills and experience.

Essential Attributes: • Experience in dealing with clients, managing your own files.

• Experience in Conveyancing, Commercial, Trusts and Estate work.

• Able to operate in a collaborative environment.

• Experience with legal software such as Actionstep is a plus.

Our offer: • Innovative & diverse team. An excellent collaborative culture.

• Great lifestyle choice.

• Market salary, benefits and opportunity for career path.

• Established precedents and technology.

• Reasonable relocation expenses.

• Flexible working arrangements by negotiation.

Please email your resume and covering letter to Neil Dickson (neil@jmjlawyers.co.nz)

Ma pango, mA whero ka oti ai te mahi.

Legal Ethics and Client Care: A Practical Guide Wednesday 8 September | 4.00pm - 5.30pm Refresh your understanding of your duties and responsibilities when it comes to client relationships, and how best to manage issues when they arise.

This session will be particularly useful for practitioners at the junior or intermediate level of experience, but will also provide a helpful refresher for more senior practitioners.

T 09 303 5278

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd

15

Bookstore A convenient, one-stop-shop for all your legal resources ADLS members, including student members, receive a 10% discount

Visit the online bookstore:

adls.org.nz/bookstore Phone:

09 303 5270 Email:

thestore@adls.org.nz

The ADLS Bookstore couriers nationwide.

Or, browse in person at: The ADLS Bookstore Ground Floor Chancery Chambers 2 Chancery Street Auckland CBD

Criminal Disclosure Uncovered Thursday 30 September | 4.30pm - 6.45pm Presenters: Julie-Anne Kincade QC; Robin McCoubrey | Chair: Her Honour Judge Sellars QC The scope for disclosure has widened as technology has developed – today, counsel needs to consider seeking cellphone provider records of witnesses or social media posts together with the more traditional items such as accounting and bank records or fingerprint evidence.

T 09 303 5278

16

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd