Issuu

NEWS Nov 12, 2021 Issue 40

Inside ■ TRUST LAW

The risk of being an independent professional trustee P07

■ RECRUITMENT

Has The Great Resignation hit your firm? P11

Glaring gaps in harmful

adls.org.nz

DIGITAL COMMS BILL

Contents 03-05 CYBER-BULLYING DEEPFAKES REVENGE PORN

Our new harmful digital communications bill: what about deepfakes?

06 COVID-12 BORA POWERS

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

Appeal Court rules on the legality of the lockdown

Editor: Jenni McManus Publisher: ADLS

07 PASSIVE TRUSTEE LIABILITY

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

The perils of being an independent professional trustee

11 COVID-19 CULTURE FLEXIBILITY

The Great Resignation: how to attract and retain legal staff

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

08-09 13 EVENTS

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.

14-15 FEATURED CPD

Photo: Lorado / Getty Images

16 CPD IN BRIEF

Hate speech law: balancing free speech with curbing terrorism

©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: Chainarong Prasertthai / Getty Images

Nov 12 2021 Issue 40

TECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW

A glaring gap in the harmful digital communications bill People’s lives have been destroyed and I’ve found myself standing in front of judges who are asking me why the police are not acting on the matter with no answer that I can give them Rod Vaughan Lawyers and victim advocates welcome the proposed amendments to the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA) but say they do not go far enough and fall short of providing victims with a quick and efficient means of redress. The Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill 2020 is awaiting its second reading in the House. Introduced by Labour MP Louisa Wall, the bill removes the need for the police to prove a perpetrator intended to cause serious harm and makes it an offence to share intimate visual recordings of another without express consent. But a glaring omission from the bill is its failure to deal with deepfakes – highly doctored images or videos of people in compromising situations that are so realistic that they appear to be genuine. Deepfakes are one of the most pernicious and distressing forms of cyber-bullying, yet the new bill offers no protection for victims. Fake images have been around for as long as photography and film have existed but state-of-the-art digital technology has taken them to a new level. They first came to prominence in 2017 with the sharing of pornographic videos that appeared to feature popular female celebrities. Within two years, almost 15,000 deepfakes were circulating online, most of them pornographic and featuring female celebrities. Arran Hunt, a partner at Stace Hammond and a member of the ADLS Technology and Law committee, says he is deeply concerned that deepfakes are not covered by the new bill. “Such technology is now available without cost to anyone who owns a smartphone,” he says. “Utilising several generic

photos of someone from social media, they can quickly be inserted into any manner of video or images, including ones that once released are likely to cause serious emotional distress. “It won’t matter that it wasn’t actually them and that the video has been faked. It will have the same effect as genuine intimate visual material and would be posted with the same purpose in mind – to cause harm. “This is why we believe that the bill should be updated to clarify that the definition of ‘made’ includes deepfakes. “Without such an alteration, people creating and posting deepfakes will not automatically be caught by the Act and may have a good defence in that the videos may not strictly meet the definition of intimate visual recording.” Barrister Kathryn Dalziel is another who believes deepfakes should be included in the amended legislation. “This type of artificial but entirely realistic image wasn’t contemplated at the time the Act came into force and does not address where people suffer harm at having such believable images circulated about them. “This is an omission in the Act and should be properly addressed to ensure that the offence targets abusive use of synthetic media and does not impact on legitimate audio-visual effects applied to imagery.”

Perceived deficiencies Arran Hunt

Kathryn Dalziel

The Harmful Digital Communications Act was introduced by National in 2015. It covered a wide range of offending such as online and mobile communications used to send or publish threatening or offensive material and messages, spread damaging or degrading rumours or publish invasive or distressing photographs or videos. It incorporated criminal and civil offences to be handled by the police and Netsafe respectively. According to the Ministry of Justice, there were 270 convictions under the Act between 2015 and 2020 while a Netsafe survey in 2019 found 5% of New Zealand adults – 170,000 people – had been the victim of online image-based abuse. Women made up 95% of the victims. The Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill 2020 has been introduced to remedy some of the perceived short-comings of the Act. This bill is designed to clarify the Act as it relates to intimate visual recordings by: ■ making it an offence to share an intimate visual recording of another person without their express consent; ■ imposing a penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment, or a

Continued on page 04 03

Continued from page 03

fine of up to $50,000, for an individual convicted of this offence or, for a company, a fine of up to $200,000; and ■ allowing the courts to issue orders to remove or disable intimate recordings that have been shared without consent. The current Act requires proof of intent to cause harm for a digital communication to be considered an offence and the victim must have experienced a certain level of harm. The Bill removes this test in the case of intimate visual recordings, so unauthorised sharing of this content would be an offence regardless of the level of harm that was intended or caused. Hunt says the 2015 Act was flawed from the beginning. “The original Law Commission suggestion was for a civil process that allowed for a ‘quick and efficient means of redress’ as is mentioned in s 3 of the Act. However, the government at the time introduced only half of the Law Commission’s suggestion. “It removed the part that was there to make it quick and efficient. Instead, they left it to the courts to interpret what ‘quick and efficient’ meant and, for courts, that means following the traditional process.” Hunt says this may not be an issue for matters that meet the criminal threshold as the police have the funding and experience to handle such a process. “The criminal threshold comes down to the intent of the communicator, whether it was done with the intention to cause harm. But where it doesn’t meet the criminal threshold, it’s left to the parties to go through the usual slow court process. “At that point it often comes down to the applicant not having the funds to undertake that process or going through a drawnout process that can add to the harm.”

Police inaction Hunt says court orders that may be needed to search social media accounts offshore can cost around $1,000 each. “We have contacts with several of the social media companies now so can sometimes facilitate service without that process, but for most that cost of service alone will stop them proceeding. “If a victim can’t afford to pay for that, they typically won’t be able to afford a lawyer, leaving them either unrepresented, or our firm acting pro bono. “And if the respondent is identified and defends it, then it can become a battle of attrition.” Hunt says he’s been involved in matters which have had weeks in court at great cost to both sides. “This is not a quick and efficient means of redress. It’s a fight to push the other to the verge of bankruptcy. And they are fighting just to have a court tell someone to stop posting. That’s really about the limit of the court’s power. So high costs, but for very little.” Hunt supports the government’s proposed amendments to 04

Ruth Money

Martin Cocker

Court orders that may be needed to search social media accounts offshore can cost around $1,000 each

the Act which seek to have some civil matters handled in the same way as criminal cases and to force the police to act on crimes. “In the past, they have been reluctant to take any action, as has the minister. There should be an expectation that to post someone’s intimate visual recordings without consent will cause them harm. We believe that most people would probably already think that way. “However, we’ve had several clients who have been told the opposite by the police. “One client had photos and videos of herself posted to social media on more than one occasion without her consent or knowledge of who was posting them. “But when she initially went to the police, she was told that as she had given an ex-partner the photos and videos, it was her own fault, and they wouldn’t take action. “Letters to the police officer involved went unanswered, as was our initial letter to the Minister of Police. He bothered to respond only after another MP raised it with him, but even then it went nowhere.” Hunt says yet another client had videos taken by a professional photographer who uploaded them to pornography websites without her consent. “Again, the police refused to act, claiming that she had somehow given non-verbal consent to those videos being published publicly. The police admitted there was no verbal or written consent but just assumed that consent was given. “People’s lives have been destroyed and I’ve found myself standing in front of judges who are asking me why the police are not acting on the matter with no answer that I can give them. “The police have taken a path that prevents victims from gaining the access they deserve, leaving them to seek civil action.”

Revenge porn Dalziel says the Act needs improvements to help victims make their case and is concerned that the threshold is too high for so-called revenge porn. “For the offence of causing harm by positing a digital communication, it has to be established that the person posting a digital communication intended to cause serious emotional distress (harm) to a victim. “The threshold is too high for instances where there has been a relationship breakup and intimate visual recordings made during that relationship are posted online for the purposes of causing some emotional distress but are not posted with the intention to cause serious emotional distress,” she says. “The Act should not have required ‘serious’ emotional distress or included an objective test in respect of a subject person’s emotional distress. “The amendment is important because revenge porn is prevalent and sexually abusive. It involves sharing of very private information with people for whom the pictures were not intended

Continued on page 04

Nov 12 2021

Continued from page 04

in what can be a very public way.” Dalziel says the images can stay online forever unless there is an order requiring them to be taken down. “By then, the images may have circulated into environments where the victim has no knowledge and therefore cannot control access to the images. It causes humiliation, embarrassment and trauma for victims.”

Wrong agency? Victim advocate Ruth Money, who has assisted victims of crime on a voluntary basis for almost a decade, believes the amendments to the bill will only be as effective as the two agencies approved to assess complaints – the police and Netsafe. But she says it’s of immense concern that the performance of Netsafe, which has assisted more than 14,000 people since 2016, “is beyond woeful”. “In fact, in many instances they have caused additional harm to the already harmed and vulnerable survivors. In my personal experience and [the] experience of many, many other survivors, Netsafe is not the appropriate agency to hold this important position.” Money contends that Netsafe is not adequately trained, its management does not understand sexual violence and it fails to undertake investigations. “They simply do not investigate, which is a core function under the Act,” she says. “It is my experience and that of others that they make subjective judgments, perpetuate harm, enable abusers to continue to engage and control their victims, supply incorrect information (ACC referrals, for example) and leave survivors in a worse state than they were when they first contacted them.” Money believes the correct agency should be a specialist division of the police. “Netsafe’s role and efficacy, specifically regarding HDCA complaints, should be independently reviewed and moved to NZ Police urgently, given its importance to ensure the legislation works for those who have been harmed.

The current Act requires proof of intent to cause harm for a digital communication to be considered an offence and the victim must have experienced a certain level of harm

“Currently police are confused by Netsafe’s role versus their own and this structure has caused a ‘no-man’s land’ where survivors are lost and further harmed. “Netsafe may well be qualified to teach people about online scams and educate children about staying safe online, but an investigative and trauma-informed agency to assist victims of sexual abuse they most certainly are not. “This is a specialist role that requires skilled professionals,” she says. Her assertions are endorsed by Hunt who says a specialist division of the police may be a better option than Netsafe as long as they are well trained. “So far, we haven’t often seen the police take such matters as seriously as they should or with consideration of the amount of harm being caused. “However, trained officers could better understand the harm that such communication can cause and can take an approach that would minimise future harm caused by the victims. “To be fair to them, we can’t expect Netsafe to act like a police force. Their job isn’t to say what is criminal and what is civil. However, I can see Ms Money’s point as to whether they are suitable. “Correctly trained, police may be a better option, replacing Netsafe’s role, but that would still require a significant change to the Act. I don’t believe that just replacing Netsafe with the police would solve the issues, as it would still leave many to the perils, and added harm, of the inefficient process. “An updated Act utilising specially trained police and with an efficient process would be better for all parties involved.” For his part, Netsafe chief executive Martin Cocker says last year it received more than 4000 requests for assistance in its role as approved agency under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. “Approximately 1% of those people have then chosen to progress on to the District Court. The average customer satisfaction for this service in the last quarter was 8.4 out of 10. So, in terms of filtering out matters – and the general role of the approved agency under the act – the process is working. Cocker says such results have been achieved because Netsafe is not a regulator or enforcement agency but resolves complaints through the use of advice, negotiation, mediation and, where appropriate, persuasion. “But that also places limitations on what we can do. This Netsafe process is useful as part of a mix of services to assist victims of sexual violence but should not be the primary response. “Equally, as an online safety agency, Netsafe should not be the primary response agency on matters of sexual violence.” Cocker says as the volume and complexity of online safety incidents continue to grow, it is reasonable to ask whether any one agency and process can effectively serve all those cases. “It is certainly foreseeable that in the coming years the role that Netsafe and the police play will be spread across multiple agencies providing more specialist services for specific harm types.” ■

Photo: Peter Dazeley / Getty Images

Issue 40

PUBLIC/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Court of Appeal rules on the legality of the lockdown Dr Borrowdale and his counsel have provided an important service to the community by presenting the court with the issues that we have addressed Jenni McManus Fifteen months ago, former parliamentary draftsman Andrew Borrowdale won a High Court declaration that the first nine days of New Zealand’s covid-19 lockdown, from 26 March 2020 to 3 April, were unlawful. A full bench of the High Court found that Ashley Bloomfield, the Director-General of Health, did not have the power to put the country into level 4 lockdown – at least, not at first. The initial stay-athome orders were made without legal authority and unlawfully limited rights protected under ss 16, 17 and 18 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA). The Crown did not appeal this finding. But Borrowdale did not get home on two further causes of action: that Bloomfield exceeded his powers under s70 (1)(l) and (m) of the Health Act 1956 by ordering the lockdown of healthy people across the entire country, rather than simply quarantining individuals who were sick. While this might have been a ‘justified limit’ under s 5 of BORA, the wording of this section required that the limits be prescribed by law. This had not happened, Borrowdale argued, because Bloomfield had exceeded his powers under s 70 of the Health Act

– the section the Director-General was relying upon when the lockdown was imposed. In a third cause of action, Borrowdale argued (again unsuccessfully) that Bloomfield had unlawfully delegated his power to close all but essential businesses by asking MBIE officials to decide which businesses would constitute ‘essential’ services. Borrowdale appealed the High Court’s findings on both issues and hired top QC Jim Farmer to represent him.

Appeal dismissed The Court of Appeal last week dismissed Borrowdale’s appeal on both counts but, in an unusual move, said it would not award costs against him. The court – Justices French, Cooper and Collins – said the issues raised by Borrowdale’s appeal “engage matters of significant public importance. “Dr Borrowdale and his counsel have provided an important service to the community by presenting the court with the issues that we have addressed,” the judges said. On the first matter under appeal – that Bloomfield exceeded his powers under s 70 by ordering a blanket lockdown of the entire country – Farmer argued that instead of opting for the interpretation of

Have your say on the future of Chancery Chambers ADLS members are urged to vote on the proposed sale of the society’s heritage building, Chancery Chambers. Read more here. The ballot is now open and will close on Friday 19 November. Ballot voting information has been emailed to members. If you cannot locate the emails please contact reception@adls.org.nz. ADLS Council and President Marie Dyhrberg QC recommend that members vote for the sale.

the section that least infringed on BORA-protected rights, the High Court had held that the restrictions were “a necessary, reasonable and proportionate response to the public health emergency”. Farmer also said Bloomfield could have lawfully order the lockdown but needed bespoke legislation to do so. As it stood, s 70 could be invoked only in relation to identified people or classes of people and not against the public in general. Even in exceptional circumstances, the rule of law had to be followed, Farmer said, and the government needed to change the law if it wanted to lock down the entire country. But the Court of Appeal said when Parliament enacted the Health Act, it intended to confer on the Director-General of Health wide-ranging powers to prevent the outbreak of infectious disease. The breadth of the statutory language and the context in which the powers could be exercised weighted against a narrow construction of those powers. The “stark reality”, the court said, is that when Parliament enacted s 70(1)(l) and (m) “it deliberately intended to authorise the issuance of orders that would curtail the rights of New Zealand citizens to engage in peaceful assembly, association and freedom of movement.” Its intention was to limit the rights and freedoms affirmed by ss 16, 17 and 18 of BORA but, the court said, these limits were justified in a free and democratic society. On the delegation issue, Borrowdale argued that a person vested with a statutory power must exercise that power personally. But the court ruled that Bloomfield’s delegation, to MBIE official Paul Stocks and his team, of the task of deciding which businesses were essential was not unlawful. That was because MBIE’s draft list was reviewed and approved by Bloomfield and the Director-General was entitled to rely on MBIE’s advice. Significantly, Bloomfield retained control over what constituted an ‘essential’ business, and it was he who made the final call. Bloomfield had also given guidance to MBIE before the process began, the court said. ■

Nov 12 2021 Issue 40

TRUST LAW

A salutary reminder for independent professional trustees Anthony Grant Today’s article is not based on a recent decision but on one that was given a few years ago. It’s about the liability of ‘passive’ trustees. The case is Selkirk v McIntyre [2013] NZHC 575. A solicitor, David Phillip Selkirk, accepted appointment as an ‘independent professional trustee’ of a client’s trust. Selkirk was a trustee together with his client, Donald Alexander McIntyre. They bought a farm, sub-divided it, sold the sections and incurred liability to pay GST and income tax. The client trustee failed to file several GST returns and the IRD turned on the solicitor trustee. Selkirk blamed the client, saying the client trustee undertook day-to-day responsibility for managing the trust and the solicitor’s role was essentially ‘passive’. The solicitor trustee had not been aware that his co-trustee had failed to file the trust’s GST and income tax returns and told the court he assumed his co-trustee had taken care of these obligations.

Own money The IRD wasn’t impressed. The outstanding tax had ballooned, with interest and penalties of more than $500,000 and it wanted to be paid. The solicitor, being forced into a corner, had to negotiate to achieve the best outcome he could. He managed to reach a settlement with the IRD by paying $200,000 of his own money in satisfaction of the outstanding debt. He then turned on the client trustee and sued him for the $200,000 he had paid to the IRD. The High Court ordered the co-trustee to pay $105,337.44. So the solicitor trustee ended up having to pay about $100,000 of his own money in addition to all of the unrecovered costs involved in dealing with the IRD and litigating in the High Court. I write about this case because so many family

A ‘passive’ trustee cannot escape liability by relying on a client trustee to manage a trust’s business affairs satisfactorily

Many lawyers will be asked by clients to act as an independent professional trustee and they will often want to accept appointment, rather than lose the client to another firm Anthony Grant

trusts have a solicitor trustee who might be described as having a relatively passive role and some of these people may not understand that trustees are subject to joint and several liability. This is what Grant MR said about two passive trustees in Lingard v Bromley, a case that was decided in the early 1800s: “The Defence is of a Kind, which a Court of Justice is very unwilling to listen to: that, having undertaken a Trust, they abdicated all Judgment of their own in the Performance of it; and did whatever the Plaintiff desired: “without examining” (as they say in so many Words) “into the Matter, or Ground, of the Proceeding”. Nothing could be more mischievous than to hold, that Trustees may thus act; and avoid Responsibility by throwing the Burthen upon the Person, in whom they have reposed this blind Confidence.” It was held in the Selkirk case that Grant MR’s statement ‘remains good law to this day’. A ‘passive’ trustee cannot escape liability by relying on a client trustee to manage a trust’s business affairs satisfactorily.

A solution I had to look at the Selkirk case recently in the context of a case where a trustee was reliant on a

co-trustee to provide him with information and the co-trustee failed to do so, leaving the co-trustee exposed to liability. Many lawyers will be asked by clients to act as an independent professional trustee and they will often want to accept appointment, rather than lose the client to another firm. The Trustee Act 1956 had a default mechanism whereby all trusts were required to have two trustees unless one trustee was specified when the trust was created or unless a trustee corporation was appointed a trustee. The Trusts Act 2019 has changed this. There is no longer a requirement for a trust to have two trustees except in circumstances where the trust was expressly permitted at the outset to have one trustee. One solution for solicitors who wish to avoid having to pay substantial sums from their own resources because a client trustee may prove to be ‘unreliable’ is for them to agree to accept appointment as a special trust adviser – the new name given to the people who were called advisory trustees in the Trustee Act 1956. A special trust adviser in Selkirk’s position would not have ended up facing a liability to pay $500,000, or any sum, to the IRD. ■ Anthony Grant is an Auckland barrister specialising in trusts and estates law ■ 07

CRIMINAL/HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Hate speech laws: Balancing free speech with curbing extremism The question is what impact these proposals will have and whether they strike the right balance between free expression and responding to terrorism

Linda Clark, Jeremy Bell-Connell & Joseph Corbett

“… love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like.” Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, 1959 While Russell could not have predicted the level of interconnection that exists today, his words still ring remarkably true. The trouble with communication is the more we have with each other, the harder we find it to be charitable or tolerant. In June the Ministry of Justice announced a review of existing hate speech laws and, after the attack in the New Lynn mall, the government has criminalised the planning of a terrorist attack. Alongside this, the New Zealand courts have been asked to determine unprecedented disputes about controversial speakers’ right to freedom of speech and assembly under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA). In this article, we discuss the government’s and the courts’ responses to these issues.

Hate speech The government’s proposal to strengthen hate speech laws arose out of recommendations made in the Royal Commission of Inquiry’s report into the terrorist attacks on Christchurch Mosques on 15 March 2019. The report summarises the tension between hate speech and free speech, noting “the more far-reaching a law creating hate speech offences, the greater the potential for inconsistency with the right to freedom of expression under s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act’. Like all BORA rights, freedom of expression can be fettered within “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Precisely what ‘reasonable limits’ means is open to significant debate. The case for a limit on free speech to prevent hate speech and hate crime is made clear in the report. It cites research showing a link between hate speech and hate crime, and identifies further research indicating a plausible link between hate crime and terrorism. 08

More generally, the report notes that “many [of the community] told us the terrorist attack occurred in a context of widespread racism, discrimination and Islamophobia, where prejudgments (or hostile behaviours), including hate-based threats and attacks, are rarely recorded, analysed or acted on”.

How far? Do the proposals go far enough or too far? It is important to emphasise that New Zealand already has hate speech laws. The Royal Commission, however, has identified two main areas where the law can be improved. It notes the current laws neither appropriately capture the culpability of hate-motivated offending; nor do they provide a workable mechanism to deal with hate speech. The government has put forward several proposals to address incitement of hatred and hostility: ■ The incitement provisions in the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) apply only to groups targeted because of their colour, race, ethnic or national origins. The government is looking at amending the HRA’s incitement provisions to include targeting on the basis of religion, sexual orientation and political opinion. ■ The HRA criminalises inciting racial disharmony (an outdated phrase). The proposals move this provision to the Crimes Act 1961. ■ Punishment for the criminal offence would be up to three years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $50,000, significantly tougher than the existing penalties. The question is what impact these proposals will have and whether they strike the right balance between free expression and responding to terrorism. Three characteristics of the proposals have courted particular attention from critics: ■ Political opinion: Extending the protection to cover political opinion is problematic, with media and commentators expressing concern that it will have a chilling effect on hearty political debate. Free speech is most important when applied to political speech, the cornerstone of democratic debate, and so it seems unlikely this will continue to be a prohibited ground once a bill is prepared. ■ Changes to the criminal provision: Despite outcry from the Opposition and other critics, the proposals do not appear to significantly change the legal position other than by extending protections to more groups, clarifying language and increasing penalties. Wherever politicians ultimately draw the line between permitted and criminal speech, it will be for the courts to interpret and clarify the legislation when it is passed. Previous attempts at enforcing the existing HRA provisions on hate speech have seen the courts set a high threshold for speech that incites hostility and/or ill-will. (Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Limited [2018] NZHC 104). This is likely to continue.

Continued on page 09

Nov 12 2021 Issue 40

Continued from page 08

■ Changes to the civil provision: As with the criminal

provision, the intention is for the civil provision to be broadened to protect all of the groups listed under s 21 of the HRA. However, unlike the criminal provision, the complainant does not need to prove the person complained about actually intended to incite hostility or ill-will. This seems to broaden the civil provision’s scope, as speakers need not intend to stir up, normalise or maintain hatred in order to be liable, provided that their speech is likely to result in that outcome.

Uncertain ambit? Is the degree of initial uncertainty about the ambit of the proposed law exceptional? No. Earlier this year, with much less public debate, it became a criminal offence to engage in cartel conduct, despite competition law being a notoriously difficult and complex area of the law. Other areas of criminal law are unavoidably murkier than we would like, such as the line between planning and commissioning an offence.

Speculation Is the proposed wording beyond repair during the consultative and select committee processes? No. Until a draft bill is prepared, speculation as to the effect of the legislation is just that. The likely effectiveness of the law change will become clear only when a draft bill is prepared. More work needs to be done to ensure the changes actually implement the report’s recommendations.

Controversial speakers Are public organisations required to give controversial speakers a platform? Another battle over freedom of speech is being fought in the courts. Moncrieff-Spittle v Regional Facilities Auckland Limited asks whether Regional Facilities Auckland Limited (RFAL) was entitled to cancel a speaking event for right-wing Canadian YouTubers Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux. At first blush, many thought the case would engage hate speech issues. But the case turned on the fact that the promoter failed to give any indication to the venue that security was likely to be an issue because protesters were expected to block access and affect neighbouring businesses. This gave rise to genuine health and safety concerns justifying cancellation of the event. On the specific facts of the case, it was undoubtedly the right decision. Similar issues emerged in the recent High Court case about a group called Speak Up For Women (SUFW), a self-described ‘traditional women’s group’ campaigning against proposed changes to the way gender is registered on official documents. In June 2021, a member of SUFW arranged with the Palmerston North City Library to book a venue for a public

meeting. Eight days prior to the event, the council advised SUFW that it was cancelling the event in favour of arranging a meeting at a later date where balanced perspectives on the topic could be heard. SUFW filed judicial review proceedings seeking a declaration that SUFW’s licence to hire the meeting space continued to be in force. The High Court applied the Court of Appeal’s decision in Moncrieff-Spittle v RFAL and held that, unlike in the earlier case, SUFW had the right to hire the library as a venue for its meeting. By insisting that SUFW could speak at an event on council-owned premises only in the manner prescribed by the council, there had been a serious failure to recognise the group’s right to freely assemble and speak. Justice Nation therefore granted SUFW the right to host its event and it duly went ahead. This remains an active space. The Supreme Court has granted Malcolm Moncrieff-Spittle and David Cumin leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in Moncrieff-Spittle v RFAL.

Terrorism laws The New Lynn terrorist attack also brought reforms to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 (TSA) into the spotlight. The Prime Minister conceded that prior to the attack, government agencies failed at several legal attempts to prosecute the terrorist or to keep him detained. The government introduced the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, which amended the TSA to criminalise the planning and preparation of a terrorist act. Under the new law, the prosecution must prove that the act which is planned or prepared for would constitute a terrorist act if it were carried out, but need not prove a particular target, location, date or time for the intended terrorist act. There are concerns that the reform extends the criminal law beyond when ‘you go out and start to do something’ into ‘[criminalising] thinking about doing something’. The Green Party and the Act Party opposed the bill, citing the lack of adequate human rights protections. However the two major parties in Parliament committed to passing the bill and it received royal assent on 4 October 2021.

What’s next? Both the hate speech and terrorism law reforms have been criticised as knee-jerk responses to recent terrorist acts. To a degree, they are. But the real question now is whether they will prevent future attacks. Since 11 September 2001, the debate between free speech protections and anti-terrorism has unfolded with fresh intensity on a global level. Broadly speaking, there are two divergent approaches to criminalising speech. The US courts have maintained broad constitutional protections of hate speech, whereas Europe and Canada have put in place hate speech laws intended to protect vulnerable communities. For New Zealand, these events are unprecedented and there is no playbook to follow. Linda Clark is a partner, Jeremy Bell-Connell is a senior associate and Joseph Corbett is a law graduate at Dentons Kensington Swan ■

Linda Clark

Jeremy Bell-Connell

Joseph Corbett

Since 11 September 2001, the debate between free speech protections and anti-terrorism has unfolded with fresh intensity on a global level

Auckland Community Law Centre seeks applications for a Director/Manager and Supervising Lawyer The Auckland Community Law Centre, now located in the inner city, has a long history and deserved reputation for delivering quality legal assistance to the many who are not eligible for legal aid, but cannot afford private legal fees. It is staffed by seven full-time lawyers, three administration support staff, funded by Ministry of Justice and supported by volunteer lawyer supervisors. It operates a busy triage programme in response to phoned requests for legal assistance and staffed by senior law students on rotation. Any additional assistance needed is undertaken by the permanent staff. There is a strong staff culture of social justice and supportive interaction. The Centre is looking for a person with sufficient legal experience to provide leadership and guidance for the permanent staff lawyers and overall supervision of all staff. Also, most importantly, that applicant must have proven management experience. The Centre has a high-functioning Board comprising practising lawyers and community representatives, and the position reports directly to the Board. The role requires stakeholder relations with the Ministry of Justice, Community Law Centres o Aotearoa and other community law centres, as well as working with senior members of the profession on the future of access to justice, including the judiciary, regulators, professional associations and policy makers. This position would best fit an experienced practitioner with a practising certificate who has had a successful role in the management of a firm. The division of legal and management roles is expected to be about even and could for example suit someone who is looking to scale back from the demands of private practice. This is a rare and special opportunity: the role is varied and dynamic; the organisational culture is supportive. This is your opportunity to practise law in a highly rewarding and meaningful way. Please respond in writing to jo@aclc.org.nz

Briefs Volunteers needed LCANZi (Lawyers for Climate Action New Zealand Incorporated) is seeking volunteers for three of its sub-committees: ■ Te Tiriti and Tikanga sub-committee; ■ Agriculture and Food Supply sub-committee, which is working on a project for government funding of an irrigation scheme; and ■ Greenwashing sub-committee. Anyone interested in volunteering for any of these sub-committees or looking for further information should contact admin@lawyersforclimateaction.nz LCANZi is a growing group of legal experts using their skills, experience and passion in the fight against climate change. It is involved in a range of projects and initiatives, with a view to ensuring more effective action in New Zealand against climate change by raising public awareness and advocating for appropriate legislation and policies. The group says it is always looking for support in the form of memberships where people can receive its monthly newsletter updates and support projects such as its judicial review proceedings against the Climate Change Commisssion and the Minister for Climate Change. LCANZi filed an amended statement of claim on November 3 and a hearing is scheduled to begin on 22 February next year.

Barrister backlash The backlash is growing in Melbourne against plans by the Victoria government to enact new pandemic legislation that would significantly extend the ability of Premier Dan Andrews and his Health Minister to operate without parliamentary oversight. Dozens of lawyers, including at least 23 QCs, have signed an open letter saying the new legislation could allow the Premier “to rule the state of Victoria by decree” and confer “an unlimited and practically irreversible power” on the state’s Health Minister.

Presidents are not kings Former US President Donald Trump has lost his bid to invoke executive privilege in order to block the National Archive from turning over hundreds of documents relating to the House of Representatives’ probe into the January 6 Capitol insurrection. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan told Trump he could not out-run the rule of law and the constitution forever. “Presidents are not kings,” she said, “and [the] plaintiff is not the president.” Her ruling is a huge boost for the House select committee which is investigating the riots and the part played by the former President. The panel has been struggling to get key figures close to Trump to testify. Among those subpoenaed is New Zealander Chris Liddell, who was one of Trump’s closest aides. ■

Nov 12 2021 Issue 40

LEGAL RECRUITMENT

How law firms can attract and retain staff

The firm doesn’t care. Its view is that it can burn through people and they may come back again later if bridges aren’t burned

Diana Clement The talent crunch is getting tighter and law firms need to get creative if they want to fill vacancies. ‘The Great Resignation’ has hit New Zealand hard, says McLeod Duminy Legal Recruitment director Kirsty Spears. An inaugural survey by McLeod Duminy has found that the pandemic has piled the pressure on law firms’ recruitment as lawyers leave the country and the pipeline of overseas talent remains firmly shut. It’s so well-known overseas that New Zealand is not open for business that inquiries from overseas lawyers have all-but-disappeared for now, Spears says. “It’s a double whammy. We have so many roles that have been open for weeks.” Other countries don’t have closed borders which just exacerbates the problem here. “The effects of the pandemic, particularly the closure of the borders to overseas qualified candidates, has added extra pressure.” Property, corporate and commercial are the most difficult practice areas to recruit for in the current market, she says. It’s all the more reason for law firms to improve their culture and engagement. The survey indicated that workplace culture is the key factor when lawyers are considering whether to leave their jobs. Remuneration and quality of work are also high on the list. Those three were more important than big-ticket items such as expensive perks. Other issues respondents commented on included: ■ inconsistency in rules, such as some partners supporting flexibility and others ‘remaining slavish to presenteeism’; ■ lack of direction and mentoring and no clear commitment to development; ■ lip service around workplace culture, but no action; ■ racism and sexism; ■ a lack of accountability; ■ a ‘no care attitude’ or a sense of arrogance towards people leaving the firm, which is not perceived to be a loss; ■ limited or no induction when joining the firm;

Property, corporate and commercial are the most difficult practice areas to recruit for in the current market

■ a lack of mental-health awareness and a lack of support in a time of need; and

■ poor communication: infighting, whispers and conversations behind closed doors. More than half of the respondents said they hadn’t seen a change for the better, although some of the comments cited examples of good management, especially since the start of the pandemic. For example, one respondent said communication within the firm had actually improved since covid-19 hit. Employers were checking in with employees more often and taking stock of their mental health, says Spears. Sometimes quite simple changes can improve morale and help retain staff. Staff dinners or morning teas can pay off handsomely. “A coffee with HR, or Friday night drinks. Relationships and communication take time but are not expensive,” she says. And improvement doesn’t always cost money. Spears worked for a company in Sydney where Friday afternoons were made special by a regular weekly competition. The person best at achieving that week’s goals, which could be fun or serious, got to choose the radio station in the lead-up to staff drinks. One staff member was a country music fan and the rest knuckled down hard to beat him. “It was very unifying and it didn’t cost us anything at all,” she says. Many of the answers to the survey were illuminating as to what could make employees stay. On the subject of what good management

meant in law firms, one respondent said: “Close working relationships with partners, open-door policies, cultivate a caring environment, no excessive downward pressure from management, respectful and professional tone of voice, regularly shows it appreciates and cares about its staff.” On social events, where law firms don’t have a good track record, one respondent spoke highly of “Friday drinks, work dinners and Christmas party; generally fun, social culture; morning teas, semi-regular team events, social club.” On the subject of team culture, what looked good was “good collaborative team environment; supportive environment.” Rewards were valued by respondents. “Birthday day off, cash incentive for on-boarding new clients; celebrate and reward success.” And the essential work/life balance was satisfied by: “Work from home options, easy to apply for leave; remote working; flexibility for family commitments; work hours are reasonable.” CoLegal managing director Anand Ranchhod is also seeing a shortage in candidates. “I am starting to see a trickle of lawyers going overseas and I am not seeing many people returning,” he says. “MIQ is making it harder to attract talent from overseas and my prediction is that next year we will be even more candidates short.” The challenge for employers is to attract and retain talent, says Ranchhod. His key suggestions were to improve remuneration, communicate better around pathways for progression, improve transparency and work on ensuring staff members feel valued. Ranchhod also recommends law firms become less fixed in their requirements for new hires. Sometimes it pays to employ slightly more junior lawyers and train them. Some law firms still have a long way to go. As one lawyer said: “The firm doesn’t care. Its view is that it can burn through people and they may come back again later if bridges aren’t burned.” ■

COMMERCIAL / PROPERTY LAWYER INTERESTED IN FORESTRY & CLIMATE CHANGE – AUCKLAND

A specialist accounting practice is looking to sub-lease in the Auckland CBD Our sub-lease is coming to an end and we are seeking furnished or unfurnished office space in the Auckland CBD of approximately 60m² to 80m² with the provision of reception and meeting room facilities (no car parks required). We are ﬂexible in regard to terms of a sub-lease. We can provide positive references if required. If you would like to sub-lease to a reputable accounting practice, please contact: Rowan Chapman 09 215 4764 | rowan@chapmanatkins.co.nz

 Do you want to contribute to NZ’s efforts to combat climate change?  Do you want to work on pioneering projects for some of NZ’s largest forest owners? You  5 – 10 years’ PQE with a current NZ practising certificate  Experience in commercial / property law, ideally with forestry industry experience  Experience in climate change laws, including the CCRA  Strong drafting, transactional and statutory interpretation skills The Role

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 DX CP24001, Auckland 1140

ADLS, PO Box 58, Shortland Street, Fax: (09) 309 3726

(09) 303 5270

Forestry plays a key role in NZ’s economy and in its response to the climate crisis, including commercial rotational forestry and carbon forestry. Carbon forestry projects are happening in a dynamic regulatory environment, so you need strong statutory interpretation and analytical skills. Ideally you will have a good working knowledge of the CCRA, but if you have the rights skills, we can teach you the specifics. The work is diverse, and we work closely with other industry experts. Our work includes corporate and structuring advice, regulatory advice, M&A, property transactions of all types including purchases, leases and forestry rights, NZU sales contracts, general contracting and strategic advice. Contact Craig Nelson has over 20 years’ experience as a commercial lawyer acting for a wide range of clients across a wide range of industries, including a growing forestry / climate change practice. Craig Nelson BCom LLB 027 808 2461 | craig@baylawoffice.co.nz

BEWS Ellenor

NIHA Sonny Poai Pakeha

• Late of 15 Vincent Road, Northcote Point, Auckland 0627 • Widowed • Retired • Aged 98 / Died 07’09’21

• Late of 45 Herekino Street, Whangarei • De facto • Property maintenance manager • Aged 47 / Died 08’11’16

HEGAN Morris Leslie

STEWART-MAEA Lea

• Late of 17 Cornwall Park Avenue, Epsom, Auckland 1051 • Widowed • Retired civil servant • Aged 98 / Died 30’09’21

• Late of Mount Wellington, Auckland • Married • Service administrator • Aged 47 / Died 08’12’15

Nov 12 2021 Issue 40

Events Featured events

Connecting New Zealand Lawyers

Christchurch breakfast with the Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann Friday 11 February, 2022 7.15am – 8.30am The George, 50 Park Terrace, Christchurch Learn More

New Plymouth sundowner Thursday 24 February, 2022 5.30pm – 7.30pm The Pepper Room, Millennium Hotel New Plymouth Waterfront Catering sponsored by MAS Learn More

Upcoming February

Friday 11 | Christchurch breakfast with Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann Thursday 24 | New Plymouth sundowner

March

Wednesday 2 | Central Auckland express lunch Wednesday 16 | Newly Suited meet the QCs evening, Auckland Monday 28 | ADLS golf tournament

April

Wednesday 6 | Rotorua lawyers’ lunch

Auckland central express lunch Wednesday 2 March, 2022 1pm – 2pm Glass Goose, 78 Federal Street, Auckland Sponsored by CoLegal Learn More

Newly Suited meet the QCs evening Wednesday 16 March, 2022 5.30pm – 7.30pm Stanbeth House, 28 Customs Street East, Auckland CBD Learn More

ADLS golf tournament Monday 28 March, 2022 2pm – 8pm Remuera Golf Club, 120 Abbotts Way, Auckland

Soon to be added:

Feb – April Newly Suited ‘saved by the bell’ careers evening, Auckland Immigration law dinner, Auckland May – July Hamilton lawyers’ lunch Auckland breakfast with Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann Employment law dinner South Auckland lawyers’ lunch Breakfast with the Attorney-General, Auckland Hawke’s Bay lawyers’ lunch Henderson lawyers’ lunch, Auckland Tauranga lawyers’ lunch Northland lawyers’ lunch

Book Here

Learn More

events@adls.org.nz

adls.org.nz

FEATURED CPD

Metropolitan Glass: new guidance on discretionary payments HOLIDAY PAY BONUS

Webinar 1 hr Monday 15 November 12pm – 1pm Presenter Scott Worthy, partner, Kiely Thompson Caisley

FINAL NOTICE

Towards sustainability: the role of the law firm

For the first time, the Court of Appeal has interpreted s 14 of the Holidays Act which governs discretionary payments. This webinar explores the court’s landmark decision in Metropolitan Glass & Glazing Limited v Labour Inspector which affects all employers operating incentive or bonus schemes and highlights the important issues that all lawyers advising in this space should know about.

FIND OUT MORE

Live Stream 2 hrs Tuesday 16 November 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Debra Dorrington; Nicole Xanthopol; Mary Heath and Hugo Miller

MEANING RISKS OPPORTUNITIES

A thriving, resilient, safe and ultimately sustainable world is an enticing prospect. It’s also an imperative. What responsibilities do lawyers and law firms have to help bring about that future? This session is aimed at all legal professionals, particularly partners/ principals, directors and practice/office managers in small to medium sized firms, and barristers.

LIVE STREAM

Trans-Tasman Resources RECOGNITION ENDORSEMENT APPLICABILITY

Webinar 1 hr Tuesday 30 November 1pm – 2pm Presenters Rachael Jones, rōia matua (senior solicitor), Chapman Tripp and Josie Te Rata, rōia matua (senior solicitor), Chapman Tripp

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd v Taranaki Whanganui Conservation Board reflects greater inclusion of tikanga Māori in our law. This webinar will explore the case and its broader implications.

FIND OUT MORE 14

Nov 12 2021 Issue 40

adls.org.nz/cpd

FINAL NOTICE

Competition law update ISSUES CASE LAW EXAMPLES

Live Stream 2 CPD hrs Thursday 18 November 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Alan Lear; Kim Francis; Matthew Sumpter; Sarah Keene; Ben Hamlin Chair Dr Mark Berry, barrister

cpd@adls.org.nz

09 303 5278

Focussing on restrictive trade practices, cartels, monopolisation, mergers and acquisitions, dealings with the Commerce Commission, and compliance programmes, our panel will use case studies to update you on law changes together with recent cases and examples.

LIVE STREAM

Evidence law update DEVELOPMENTS EVIDENCE INSIGHTS

Live Stream 2 CPD hrs Wednesday 1 December 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Scott Optican, Associate Professor, University of Auckland and Jack Oliver-Hood, barrister

Presented by two of the co-authors of the 2018 text Mahoney on Evidence: Act & Analysis, this seminar will focus on the current application of key sections of the Evidence Act 2006 in both the civil and criminal law jurisdictions. This seminar will cover recent developments related to rules of evidence that are of interest to civil and criminal law practitioners.

LIVE STREAM

Children who come to the attention of police YOUTH JUSTICE JOURNEY

Live Stream 2 hrs Thursday 25 November 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Craig Clark; Tahu Weeks; Laura Wainwright; Gary Earley; Steven O’Connor and Zoe Monk Chair Judge FitzGerald

Children aged 10 to 13 who come to police attention are a unique and special group. The system set up for them is also special and unique; they are the quintessential embodiment of the crossover between the care and protection and the youth justice provisions of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 which places emphasis on taking a primarily welfarefocused approach, rather than a criminal justice one, wherever possible.

FIND OUT MORE 15

CPD IN BRIEF

Written advocacy: what judges want

Seminar 1.5 hours Tuesday 15 February 4.30pm – 6pm Presenters Raynor Asher QC, Richmond Chambers and Davey Salmon QC, Mills Lane Chambers IN PERSON

Immigration policy changes

‘Court’ by forensics

Focussing on trial and appellate submissions, the panellists will provide invaluable insights into how to approach drafting, the structure and language to be used once you put pen to paper and ways to ascertain whether you’ve achieved your purpose. Chair Paul David QC, Eldon Chambers

LIVESTREAM

Live Stream 2 hrs Wednesday 16 February 4pm – 6pm Presenters Pooja Sundar, partner, D&S Law and Lauren Qiu, principal, Stay Legal Chair Stewart Dalley, partner, D&S Law

The immigration landscape is constantly evolving. Add covid-19, lockdowns and border restrictions into the mix and what you get is a recipe for unprecedented change to immigration policy. Perhaps most notable is the introduction of the 2021 ‘one-off’ resident visa which will be tested for the first time in December 2021.

Workshop 4 hrs Saturday 19 February 9am – 1.15pm Presenters Tom Coyle, Managing Director, Forensic Insight Ltd and Allie Coyle, director, Forensic Insight Ltd

Forensics never goes away. They are everywhere and every contact leaves a trace. This workshop will take you behind the scenes as a crime scene investigator, giving you a greater understanding of what type of evidence is preserved from the scene and used effectively in court, the importance of the chain of evidence and an insight into how to deal with expert forensic witnesses.

FIND OUT MORE

FPA and TPA claims: an update

In Person | Live Stream 2 hrs Thursday 24 February 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Bill Patterson, partner, Patterson Hopkins and Greg Kelly, principal, Greg Kelly Law Limited IN PERSON

Claims under the Family Protection Act 1955 and Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 are commonplace. They can also be complex, with some involving multiple claimants and/or defendants and both Acts. Focussing on topical issues, emerging trends and key case law, this seminar will provide a valuable update for those working in this area of practice. Chair Brian Carter, barrister, Bastion Chambers LIVESTREAM

Gone Phishing Thursday 2 December 2021 | Webinar | 1 CPD hour Visit adls.org.nz for more information.

Nov 12 2021 Issue 40

PRO-ACTIVE SENIOR LAWYER Commercial/Commercial Property, 5 YEARS+ PQE

• Competitive salary and bonus scheme • Newmarket location, modern approach • Opportunity to join a busy boutique legal practice If you have strong commercial and commercial property law experience, excellent communication skills and are ready to take your career to the next level, we want to talk to you. We are seeking a senior lawyer with the right skills, but more importantly the right attitude and drive to join a growing legal business. Please apply with CV and academic record to sara@lockhartlegal.co.nz

PROPERTY LAWYER

Intermediate/Senior Solicitor

We are a busy provincial law firm situated at the gateway to Thamesa solicitor, ideally with the Coromandel andLocation: seek to employ at least 5 years’ experience in property law, to work in our Aregeneral you looking for a lifestyle change? Join our busy and modern law practice practice.

located at the gateway to the Coromandel.

We offer a challenging and interesting range of work in a Applicants should have at least 5 years’ experience in property, trusts and estates. supportive congenial working environment. Definite prospects for advancement exist for the right candidate.

You can look forward to great work/life balance with partnership opportunities. This is Applications an opportunity to should be part of a progressive practice with CV be forwarded by email to: where a positive work/life balance is a priority.

maree@millerpoulgrain.co.nz

Applications with CV should be forwarded by email to rodney@millerpoulgrain.co.nz

Membership offers a range of benefits, including:

Become an ADLS Member adls.org.nz/join

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

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

membership@adls.org.nz

09 303 5270

Who’s The DaDDy? Call us on 09 571 0474 or email dna@dnadiagnostics.co.nz NZ Owned and Operated

dnadiagnostics.co.nz 17

Lawyer – Minimum 8 Years’ PQE – Pukekohe Are you a lawyer with 8 + Years of experience as a general practitioner seeking a partnership in the next year or two? Do you have a background in property, relationship property, trusts, commercial and estate law?

INTERMEDIATE CROWN PROSECUTOR We seek a practitioner with a minimum of 4 years’ post qualification experience to carry out prosecution work in the Timaru, Oamaru, Ashburton and Christchurch Courts. The successful applicant will have the ability to undertake jury trials immediately.

Blackhawk Law is a well-established highly profitable small law firm specialising in Property Law looking for someone to join our friendly team. Walk into a great long-term client base ready for you to get started in a location close to Auckland that has experienced nothing but growth in the Property Market, but also offers a lifestyle.

The role will be as second-in-charge to the Crown Solicitor and will carry with it significant responsibility given your involvement in a small prosecution team. The quality and breadth of work gives the opportunity for rapid career advancement and excellent career promotion.

This business is future-proofed against Covid 19 disruptions with tried, tested and proven systems that allow the business to continue through any alert level seamlessly.

Timaru offers an excellent climate and relaxed and affordable lifestyle with low house prices (median $437,000), excellent schools, a short commute and easy access to dozens of recreational and leisure pursuits. Timaru is ideally positioned between Christchurch and Dunedin.

We are looking for someone with an outgoing friendly nature, leaderships skills and you will need to be willing and capable of working in a team of lovely ladies. You will be very busy but well remunerated with a Salary package that will include bonuses with a view to Partnership in a short time-frame for the right candidate.

A second-to-none salary package, flexible working arrangements, free car parking and moving expenses will be negotiated with the successful applicant.

If this sounds like the job for you, please forward your application by email to: kim@blackhawklaw.co.nz

Confidential applications and expressions of interest should be directed to Shirley Baker, E-mail: shirley@gressons.co.nz, Telephone: 03 687 8004, by 29 November 2021.

First, Do No Harm: Fundamentals of Public Family Law and the Wellbeing of Tamariki Thursday 31 March | 4.00pm - 6.15pm Providing an essential understanding of the context and nature of legislation around the care and wellbeing of children, this seminar will help lawyers better comprehend – and perform − their role in this crucial area.

T 09 303 5278

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd

Nov 12 2021 Issue 40

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

Examination-in-Chief and Re-Examination Workshop Saturday 26 March | 9.00am - 1.15pm In this learn-by-doing workshop, you will get to test your examination-in-chief and reexamination skills and receive individualised feedback from experienced practitioners and members of the judiciary.

T 09 303 5278

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd