At the Bar September 2010

At The Bar September 2010

NZBA SET TO HOST WORLD CONFERENCE IN 2014

NZBA Set to Host World Conference in 2014

INSIDE THIS ISSUE Pg 2 - President’s Report - NZBA Set to Host World Conference in 2014 Pg 4 - Justice at Any Cost? 2010 NZBA Conference Examines Civil and Criminal Procedure Reforms Pg 6 - Justice Baragwanath Marks Fifty Years in the Law Pg 7 - Justice Bennett: Law Endlessly Intellectually Stimulating Pg 8 - NZBA Annual Conference Photos Pg 10 - NZBA IPSANZ Joint Seminar Photos Pg 11 - ‘Socio-Legal’ Research and Access to Justice in New Zealand Pg 12 - GST Changes for Barristers Pg 13 - What Members Need to Know Pg 15 - Bar Chat Pg 16 - Conferences and Events Pg 18 - Junior Barristers Update Pg 19 - How Much Time Do You Spend Pg 20 - Litigation Skills Course 2010

EDITOR Catriona MacLennan Tel: 0064 9 378 0964 Email: catmac@orcon.net.nz EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Miriam Dean QC Convener Tel: 0064 9 377 8959 Email: miriam@barrists.co.nz Monique Pearson Tel: 0064 9 303 4515 Email: nzbar@nzbar.org.nz Design and layout by Hot Lobster Printing courtesy of Ricoh New Zealand NEW ZEALAND BAR ASSOCIATION Tel: 0064 9 303 4515 Fax: 0064 9 303 4516 Email: nzbar@nzbar.org.nz Web: www.nzbar.org.nz P O Box 631 Auckland 1140

he New Zealand Bar Association was continuing to increase the strength both of its domestic and of its international presence through greater involvement in matters relating to the profession and, more specifically, to the independent Bar, said outgoing president, Colin Carruthers QC. Mr Carruthers delivered his final address as president to the NZBA conference in Queenstown in August. He said that the influence of the association depended on the strength of its membership and he was grateful for the ongoing support and willingness of members to participate in NZBA activities. Mr Carruthers said that AttorneyGeneral Chris Finlayson had, at the association’s 2009 conference, urged it to take the lead in relation to training barristers. The association had answered that call and, in February 2010, the Training Committee under the leadership of Miriam Dean QC had launched a comprehensive education and training programme designed both for barristers and for litigators working in firms. The framework of the programme had been developed to cover a wide variety of topics, including business skills, legal writing, advocacy and courtroom etiquette. Mr Carruthers said that the association’s highly successful seminar, Take the Lead and Shape Your Future, had been run in Auckland, Hamilton and Wellington. A pilot programme aimed at criminal lawyers had been developed in association with the Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand and with assistance from Environmental Science and Research and several faculty members from the University of Auckland’s Law School. The NZBA had again offered two scholarships to junior barristers to enable them to attend the NZLS’s

Litigation Skills Programme. The scholarship recipients were Sandy Ward of Invercargill and Vicki Scott of Tauranga. In addition, the association had this year sponsored both the Auckland and the Wellington Sentencing Advocacy Competition Finals. In his role as president, Mr Carruthers said that he had attended the World Bar Conference in Sydney at Easter. There he had met with representatives of the Australian State and Territory Bars concerning reciprocity and harmonisation of rules for barristers’ training. Dialogue with NZLS had also continued in relation to barristers’ training. In particular, there had been discussions with Annette Black on a reworked Flying Start programme incorporating separate sessions for barristers. A Bar Practice Course had also been formulated and a draft course outline had now been submitted to the society. In relation to the Rules Committee, Mr Carruthers said that submissions had been made on a number of proposals for reform. These had included the law regarding the duty of parties to civil litigation to comply with the High Court Rules and the duty of lawyers to assist and co-operate; the rules relating to discovery; daily recovery rates and written briefs. He said that very favourable feedback had been received from the committee in relation to the submissions about written briefs. The association had over the past 12 months continued to liaise with the courts and with the judiciary, said Mr Carruthers. The Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the Chief High Court Judge and the NZLS President had standing invitations to attend all Bar Council meetings. A member of the

Bar Council attended the Auckland High Court stakeholders’ meetings and the Wellington external agencies’ meetings. Mr Carruthers said that international links with other associations had remained strong in the past year. The NZBA president had a standing invitation to attend all ACT Bar Association meetings and there had been extensive and very beneficial exchanges of views in the last 12 months. Mr Carruthers said that he had attended the Australian Bar Association’s meeting in Canberra in February and the new Silks dinner held at the High Court of Australia. NZBA Council member Chris Gudsell QC had been part of the coaching team at the Australian Bar Association’s Residential Advanced Trial Advocacy Course in Brisbane in January 2010.

Other notable events of the year had included a panel discussion organised by the NZBA and the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand, with the keynote speaker being the Honourable Annabelle Bennett AO of the Federal Court of Australia. The association had also held its fourth – and largest ever – annual Bench and Bar dinner in Auckland. The event had been so popular that there had been a waiting list for places. Turning to the future, Mr Carruthers said that the Bar Council had a number of projects underway. The Council had made a submission to the NZLS on its review of the Intervention Rule and was continuing to work with the society on the issue. In relation to Equitable Briefing, Mr Carruthers said that the policy had been launched at last year’s conference but, regrettably, the association had been unable to find an independent body to administer and audit the policy. However, there had been much interest and support from other similar associations in the concept of a relaunch of the policy in 2011. The responsible committee, led by Kate Davenport, would proceed with direct approaches to large law firms, corporate entities and government agencies. Mr Carruthers concluded by observing that he was greatly indebted to the Council for its support and indefatigable work throughout his term of office. He congratulated Miriam Dean QC on her position as incoming president. Mr Carruthers noted that proposed constitutional changes would enable the past president to provide support to the incumbent president and to new Council members for a term of one year. Mr Carruthers thanked Ms Pearson for her dedication to her role and said that the development of the platform for the association’s recent growth could in large measure be attributed to her professionalism.

Other international initiatives during the year had included Mr Carruthers’ attendance at the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco and a visit to New Zealand by an American Bar Association delegation. NZBA had also participated as a Co-operating Entity in the American Bar Association’s International Spring Meeting in New York in April. Mr Carruthers said that the NZBA’s Executive Director, Monique Pearson, had visited the Hong King Bar Association earlier this year. She had discussed issues such as door tenancies for junior practitioners, the concept of an international exchange programme, an international extranet and global network of bar associations, and the possibility of co-hosting a conference in 2012.

He said that he hoped that the association would continue to press home the good work initiated by former president Jim Farmer QC, which had given the NZBA the profile which it now enjoyed. He was confident that the association would continue to thrive under its new leadership.

Mr Carruthers said that he had offered to organise the 2014 World Bar Conference in New Zealand in 2014. Although final acceptance had not yet been received, he said that he had no doubt that the expectation was – and the eventuality would be – that the 2014 conference would be held in New Zealand. This was a very significant coup for the association.

Justice at Any Cost? 2010 NZBA Conference Examines Civil and Criminal Procedure Reforms Recent and proposed changes to improve New Zealand’s civil and criminal court processes were discussed in-depth at the opening session of the NZBA’s annual conference held in Queenstown at the end of August. The theme of the conference was Justice at any cost? The first session was titled Litigation efficiency and the costs of access to justice: just determination v cost effectiveness. Lord Justice Rupert Jackson, who has been a Lord Justice of Appeal since 2008 and who undertook a comprehensive review of civil litigation costs in the United Kingdom, said that the conference title Justice at any cost? neatly captured the central problem of civil justice reform. The pursuit of pure justice was a mirage and would come at prohibitive cost.

up a Judicial Steering Group to oversee the implementation of those matters within the purview of the judiciary. The new Coalition Government in the United Kingdom had recently announced that consultation would take place in relation to the report’s recommendations concerning contingency fee agreements and contingency fees. Other issues in the report were still being considered. Sir Rupert concluded that it remained to be seen how many of the recommendations would ultimately be accepted.

Chief High Court Judge, Justice Helen Winkelmann, said that the time was right for the New Zealand judiciary and the profession to focus on how litigation should best be regulated by the judiciary. She said that case management was the principal means by which judges “Any civil procedure which imposes upon regulated litigation in New Zealand. parties costs disproportionate to the value Judicial case management conferences of the dispute is a denial of justice. Thus were used to manage the interlocutory every civil justice system strikes a balance stages and to assist the parties to identify between efficiency and justice.” the issues. A hearing date was set at an early stage, with certainty that the Sir Rupert said that, in the course of the proceeding would be heard on that date. Civil Litigation Costs Review, he had Judicial settlement conferences were then studied civil procedure rules and costs used to try and facilitate earlier settlement. regimes around the world. He said that Australia was the source of much Justice Winkelmann said that these procedural innovation. The Federal Court features of the system were all sound had introduced a highly-successful Fast in concept, but there was a widespread Track for commercial cases with a trial sense that cases were not appropriately length of eight days or less. The “rocket managed, that they quickly became too docket” procedure was very effective costly and that they took too long to in promoting access to justice at a come to hearing. She had accordingly proportionate cost. concluded that it was appropriate that one of the first tasks she undertook should Sir Rupert said that he had visited New be to assess and review whether there Zealand during the course of his review was good reason for that dissatisfaction. and had received a large amount of Justice Winkelmann said that the review information about this country’s civil was ongoing and she was being assisted justice system. New Zealand’s costs in it by Justices Miller and Venning. rules were unique, being a hybrid of the fixed costs regimes of Germany and She said that the review was intended to some other continental jurisdictions, and be intensely practical and focused more on the more flexible costs regimes of many how to manage litigation at the coal face common law jurisdictions. than upon structural reform. The views she expressed were preliminary only and were The final report on the review of civil intended as the beginning of a discussion litigation costs had been published both within the judiciary and between in January 2010 and contained 109 the judiciary and the profession. Justice recommendations. The Judicial Executive Winkelmann said that her preliminary Board had announced that it supported impressions of how case management the proposals as a package and had set operated could be nothing more than

impressions, because of a lack of useful historical information about civil proceedings in the High Court. However, a number of observations could be made. The first was that the involvement of senior counsel at an earlier stage needed to be encouraged. This was because the experience of most judges was that it was only when senior counsel became involved that the issues were properly identified. Secondly, the style of judicial conferences might need to be rethought. Currently, they were between 15 and 40 minutes long, which was insufficient to allow an in-depth analysis of the issues to be conducted. The only time that the issues were subjected to laser-like focus was at the judicial settlement conference. It should occur earlier than that. Justice Winklemann said that there was also a need to reassess the point at which judges became involved in case management. In the past few years, judges had pulled back from case management and left it almost exclusively to associate judges. However, she said that judges could not afford to become so divorced from proceedings that they only received files a few days before hearings. Justice Winkelmann said that the delay in fixture dates was the biggest single failing in the present management of civil litigation. Delay in hearing disputes was unacceptable and a pilot was now running in Auckland to deal with cases of five days or less. Justice Winkelmann said that judicial settlement conferences were a good way to bring the date of settlement forward. Work was currently underway to assess how judicial settlement conferences should be timed and structured to make the best use of them. She said that judges needed to reflect on whether the ability to award costs had led to tolerance of delay and an unfocused approach to litigation. Judge Roderick Joyce QC and Dr Berry Zondag prepared a paper discussing the case for enhanced

case management and greater judicial clarity. Judge Joyce said that seeking the best justice practicable required some weighing of the resources currently available. Consideration must then be given to the energy applied to complying with rules and directions and the costs incurred in doing this. He suggested that a combination of enhanced case management and a distinct improvement in the clarity of decision-making might provide the means of bringing the system closer to the optimum delivery of justice. Technology could greatly assist in this. Judge Joyce proposed that all court filing should take place through an online application integrated with central document storage facilities. Electronic case management would be activated, meaning that the parties and the courts would be automatically informed of every development in relation to the case and would have access to all documents. Procedural judges and registry staff could manage cases using messages sent through the case management system. There would be no need for judicial or other court officers involved in case management to be physically present in court. This would mean that resources could be applied efficiently.

applications and test them within the New Zealand system. A prototype system could be trialled, and then gradually rolled out to a small number of courts. Barrister Anne Stevens discussed the Criminal Procedure (Simplification)

extended over 93 pages. It provided for five categories of offences, with all proceedings beginning in the District Court and section 87 specifying how trials were to be conducted. Ms Stevens said that the two contentious parts were the obligation on the defence to make an opening statement and the prosecutor’s right to call rebuttal evidence. “At this point it would be reasonable to doubt the accuracy of the term “simplification.” Would it not be simpler to have either a judge-alone hearing or a jury trial ? The ulimate simplicity would be to have two tiers – summary matters heard by judge alone, and trial matters heard in the District Court by a jury, with an election for a judge-alone trial. Alternatively, if it was thought necessary to retain some matters for the High Court, there could be a third tier of charges that could only be dealt with in the High Court, perhaps murder, treason, terrorism.”

The proposed new system retained the current middle band, said Ms Stevens. She described this as arguably a waste of resources. She said that it was difficult to discern any benefit from the proposed distinction between lower-level and upper-level trials. Ms Stevens said that the sections relating to election were complex and the bill plan restricted the election of Judge Joyce said that any necessary jury trials to offences carrying maximum conferences or interlocutory hearings terms of three years or more. That would could involve online communication, constitute a significant shift to what had including telephone or video been considered the fundamental right conferencing. At hearings, judges to be tried by a jury of one’s peers for Project, which was created in October and advocates would use the court’s 2007 to review and reform New Zealand’s offences carrying maximum penalties of document repository through an three months or more. criminal procedure. She said that it integrated system allowing instant integrated a range of initiatives in key access to, and presentation of, Ms Stevens described provisions justice sector agencies to improve documents. He said that all of this timeliness and efficiency in criminal court permitting defendants to be tried in their technology was currently commercially absence and in the absence of counsel as cases. The project, which was a joint available and already being used in effort of the Ministry of Justice and of the “the sort of efficiency totalitarian regimes courts which dealt with much larger dream about.” She said that a number Law Commission, would produce a new caseloads than those in the New Zealand system. No high-tech inventions Criminal Procedure Bill to replace much of of proposals conflicted with the New the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The onus or developments were required. to consolidate other legislative provisions was accordingly on the Bar to be vigilant about the proposed changes. They were “What is needed is a robust and detailed relating to criminal procedure. arguably motivated by a desire to speed plan of the desired functionality and up the steps towards conviction and such Ms Stevens said that submissions on infrastructure, and a translation of that a motive was irreconcilable with justice. the Criminal Procedure (Simplification) plan into selection of products and Bill Plan had closed on 1 March 2010 suppliers. A small project team, under and the project team had now begun its direction and management of the judiciary, but working with the Ministry of analysis of submissions in order to finalise Justice, could undertake that task within its recommendations to the Minister of Justice. Cabinet would then determine a reasonable time frame and budget.” the content of the bill to be introduced Judge Joyce said that a demonstration to Parliament later this year. She said that the bill plan had 215 sections and court could be set up to demonstrate

Justice Baragwanath Marks Fifty Years in the Law arguments to make that happen: the court can “Having responsibility for helping to deliver their legal rights to these folk was do nothing if it is starved of ball.” something very different. I have never In the run-up to his retirement from the before or since lost a stone in a week. It bench, Justice Baragwanath delivered a was an extraordinary time.” series of lectures at the six New Zealand Justice Baragwanath said that his wife’s law schools about the creation of a New work at He Huarahi Tamariki School for Zealand jurisprudence. A basic theme was teenage mothers had influenced him that much of New Zealand’s received legal tradition was of value, such as that provided profoundly. It had educated him about the challenges faced by such young by Roman law and English common law. women and their families. That the young But, he said, there was a need to identify He said that the Bar was a broad church and mothers had to deal not only with the situations in which New Zealand society his bookshelves carried many memories of required a different answer. It was only when challenges of their own disadvantage but judges, academics and practitioners who had the Supreme Court was established in 2004 with responsibility for another life was “a contributed to the law from distinctly different backgrounds. Justice Baragwanath identified as that New Zealand courts had been forced to burden which without enormous courage and vitality would be overwhelming .” face the cold winds of finality, he said. key attributes of the Bar concern for principle, the sense of humour that can acknowledge He said that seeing the young women “To know there was a nurse-maid in error, and courage. He said that, together, these coping with such challenges and Downing Street is something that must were the beginning of wisdom. He said that succeeding had been a revelation. The have restrained New Zealand judges from there were many paths to success at the Bar chance to be educated allowed them accepting full responsibility to analyse, and his mentors had taught him the important to reveal and realise their potential review and even uproot, where necessary, lesson of the need for brutal candour: to the contributions to society. Justice practices derived from elsewhere.” court, to one’s client and, above all, to oneself. Baragwanath said that the establishment Justice Baragwanath said that every of He Huarahi Tamariki showed how the “Time with these men – to our shame, for a society was distinctive. Jurisprudence was law could be brought to bear to alter settled long time, the Bar, except Augusta Wallace, accordingly deficient to the extent that it patterns. There remained the task of giving was all men ; a period on the Law Society; failed to recognise and give full effect to to young men in prison who were still and acting for practitioners whose livelihood that distinctiveness. The law relating to educable the sense of hope that was the was on the line all taught that the law sets a leaky buildings was an example . In New most effective means of reducing recidivism. single standard of probity.” Zealand, having a roof over one’s head was Justice Baragwanath noted, the older he Justice Baragwanath said that another lesson regarded as a public interest comprising had become in the law, the more he had he had learnt was pleasure in the company of the right to shelter and habitation. By contrast, the English authorities had treated discovered important aspects to which he those with whom one had fought hard. a house simply as an economic investment. had been oblivious. He said that he had “That was because they accepted common found fascinating his recent encounters Likewise, New Zealand and England had standards and after it was over they had risen different attitudes to tax avoidance. with civil law and had come to understand further in one’s esteem. Of course there were that the answers to difficult legal questions Justice Baragwanath said that working on the also-rans. But they did not last.” were not only to be found by looking in law Treaty issues and sitting in Samoa had taught books. The examples of Coke, Mansfield, During his time on the bench, Justice him the need to acknowledge that others and more recently Birkett, whose judgment Baragwanath said that he had had the saw the world differently from those whose in Constantine v Imperial Hotels [1944] KB privilege of seeing his colleagues and families came from Europe. Until 1986, when 693 was to have been the subject of another successors at the Bar – many of them female Matiu Rata had asked him to act for the of Mike Taggart’s analyses, underlined the – grappling successfully with a myriad of Muriwhenua tribes in the fisheries case before point of Sir Stephen Sedley’s essay “On problems in a range of specialties beyond the Waitangi Tribunal , he had never had never doing anything for the first time”. his own experience. Despite the admirable substantial encounter with the Maori part of development of alternative dispute resolution, New Zealand’s identity. “As society is constantly shifting, unless the a huge and increasing variety of problems law is to fall behind and work injustice, those He said that discovering the enormity of continued to be brought before the courts. who work in the law have to keep their ideas what had happened to the tribes of the north up to date; that’s part of its fascination.” “Treaty litigation is an important example. had been eye-opening. By a series of Readers of The Spirit Level will recall the Justice Baragwanath will continue to be political decisions they had been deprived research by epidemiologists into the relationship of virtually their whole entitlement to engage based in New Zealand, where he will retain a between social inequality and social disharmony. in commercial fishing. Later, he said, he had visiting professorship. But the next phase of That in New Zealand, as in Canada and found similar treatment of much of their land. his life will be overseas. In England, where he Australia, there is major disparity between is an Honorary Bencher of the Inner Temple, indigenous and others’ social indicators, among Justice Baragwanath said that the first he will spend time at Queen Mary University, week of the Muriwhenua hearing, when them health, employment and imprisonment London and at Wolfson College, Cambridge. the Waitangi Tribunal recommended the figures, is a powerful justification for the courts He will also visit the University of Manitoba, to play their part in dealing with the injustice that enactment of what became section 9 of the and is to deliver an address in the Common State Owned Enterprises Act, had been a results from inequality. It is a tribute to Maori Law Lecture Series at the University of revelation. He had described his experience Hong Kong. Justice Baragwanath will also that they have to such an extent chosen the on the case as akin to the first chapter of courts as a forum to vindicate rights. It is the be taking up for a period an international Alice in Wonderland. task of counsel to find and advance principled position which is yet to be announced. As members of the community brought increasingly broad ranges of problems to the courts for resolution, ever-increasing standards of competence were required from counsel and judges said Court of Appeal judge, Justice David Baragwanath. Justice Baragwanath spoke to the NZBA Newsletter to mark the occasions of his fifty years in the law and his retirement from the Court of Appeal on 2 August 2010, after 15 years on the bench.

Justice Bennett: Law Endlessly Intellectually Stimulating An informal convergence of the common law and civil law legal systems was taking place as jurisdictions grappled with the problems inherent in modern-day litigation, said Federal Court of Australia Judge, Justice Annabelle Bennett. She spoke to the NZBA Newsletter when she was in New Zealand in July to participate in an NZBA seminar. Justice Bennett said that both common law and civil code jurisdictions were seeking to cope with modern day litigation. The underlying assumption was that justice would be done, and the question was how this could be achieved in a reasonably cost effective and efficient way. She said that it was easy to criticise the adversarial system, but her perception was that something of a convergence between the two systems was occurring. For example, civil code countries did not formally have a process called discovery, but in practice documents could now be obtained in most countries through the court’s process. She described the docket system as an extremely positive development. The process of one judge running a case from the beginning gave judges greater independence and control and also provided them with increased job satisfaction. Justice Bennet said that, in the Federal Court, judges were always striving to do better and there was ongoing pressure to perform at a higher level. Possible disadvantages of the docket system were that each judge might have a different way of doing things and that it could be expensive if too many directions hearings took place. Justice Bennett said that she did not believe that lawyers were communicating with one another enough. It was too easy for counsel to write letters, which could become increasingly lengthy and aggressive. If, instead, the two barristers had picked up the phone and spoken to each other, issues might have been resolved, directions conferences might not have been required and clients could have been saved thousands of dollars. “In complex cases, I look for lawyers to be creative with me.” Discovery was a major issue, said Justice Bennett, and the fallback position in her court was that there was no discovery if the parties could not agree on the relevant issues. She said that it was only in a tiny fraction of cases that full-blown discovery yielded documents of major significance that the parties did not know existed. She said that she was concerned that many young lawyers were being driven out of the legal profession by their experiences of spending lengthy periods doing discovery in their first years in practice. “These kids are the top kids in our society. We put them on discovery and they walk from the profession. What a tragedy for the profession.”

In the majority of cases, she said, documents could be categorised. If people required information relating to a particular category of documents, that could then be requested. She said that she told parties that they should think of discovery requests as subpoenas, in which what was wanted had to be described. Parties should have a pretty good idea of where the information sought was likely to be found and a specific request meant that the party providing the information could speedily go to the appropriate virtual or physical file. In relation to expert evidence, she said that it was now possible to deal with it sensibly and flexibly. Hot tubbing was frequently used.

firms seeking to advance women, awarded scholarships for post-graduate study and offered mentoring to women.

Justice Bennett was appointed to the Federal Court in 2003. Prior to that, she was at the Bar for 26 years. Law is entrenched in Justice Bennett’s family, with her father being a lawyer and her husband serving as Commonwealth Solicitor-General for over 10 years. She had originally set her sights on being a barrister but her father steered her away from the law, believing that it was not a good career for women. Justice Bennett accordingly turned her focus to science, earning a Bachelor of Science and then completing a doctorate in Biochemistry. After that, though, she decided that law was really the career she wanted and she enrolled for a law degree.

In 2008, Justice Bennett was the Head of Delegation for the APEC Women Leaders’ Network Meeting in Peru. She had previously been involved when APEC was held in Australia and also spoke at the Singapore meeting last year. She said that her involvement had been very stimulating, as delegates heard from women from all over the APEC region. However, the downside was that the Women Leaders’ Network had put up the same recommendations for a number of years but few of them had been acted on by APEC leaders or foreign ministers. She said that there appeared to be a lack of commitment to advancing the issues considered important by the Network.

Justice Bennett specialised in Intellectual Property and held a wide range of positions while she was at the Bar. She was a member of the New South Wales Bar Association’s Mediators Panel, a part-time commissioner of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, a member of the Biotechnology Consultative Group and a member of the Corporations and Securities Panel. Both Justice Bennett and her husband have received Orders of Australia for services to law. Her husband, David, was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2000. Justice Bennett was awarded the title of Officer of the Order of Australia in 2005, and her husband was made a Companion of the Order of Australia three years later. Justice Bennett, who specialised in Intellectual Property when she was at the Bar, said that her present view was that current legislation was capable of dealing with the issues raised by emerging technologies. There was, however, a steep learning curve for judges in keeping up with technological developments. Justice Bennett is a member of Chief Executive Women, an Australian organisation started over 20 years ago to enable women leaders to support future female leaders. She said that, in addition to providing opportunities for social interaction, the organisation had produced a chief executive officer’s toolkit for

Justice Bennett said that greater numbers of women at higher levels of the legal profession could not be achieved overnight. Her view was that, in New South Wales at least, there were not enough senior women to appoint to the bench. She said that, as soon as women took silk, they were likely to be offered appointments but her view was that it was important for there to be senior women at the Bar. That was one of the reasons why she had remained at the Bar for 23 years.

Justice Bennett said that conscious steps needed to be taken to integrate women into the scope of economic life. More education needed to be targeted at encouraging women into careers in maths and science. Women represented 50 per cent of countries’ intellectual capital and not enough was being done to harness what they could offer. Justice Bennett once told an interviewer that working in law was “like getting paid to eat ice cream.” She said that she still had the same passion for law, which she described as “endlessly intellectually stimulating.” “It’s always stimulating. It can be difficult. On the one hand you have to read all the material before you come on to the bench and on the other hand you have all your judgments to write. The work of a judge is relentless.” Justice Bennett said that, while the work of a barrister involved acute pressure, the work of a judge involved chronic pressure. Despite her busy life as a judge, Justice Bennett is currently also Pro-Chancellor of the Australian National University, and a trustee of the Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust. She is also a Presidential Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an Arbitrator of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and a member of the Law Academic Advisory Committee of The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

NZBA annual conference â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 27 to 29 Augus The NZBA would like to acknowledge the support it received from the

st 2010 – Millbrook Resort – Queenstown following sponsors of this year’s highly successful annual conference

NZBA IPSANZ joint seminar “Litigation Practice – Where to now?” held on 30 July 2010 – with key presenter and moderator Justice Annabelle Bennett AO of the Federal Court of Australia. Panellists included Justice John Fogarty, Jim Farmer QC, and Julian Miles QC. Our thanks to function hosts, Simpson Grierson.

‘Socio-Legal’ Research and Access to Justice in New Zealand – Professor Kim Economides

Can legal scholars based in their ‘ivory tower’ exert an impact on legal services policy directed at the so-called ‘real world’? Legal research – and particularly empirical ‘socio-legal’ studies examining the behaviour of legal processes, institutions and actors – undoubtedly holds considerable potential to guide law reform though precisely what such research has contributed in the past or, more importantly, whether it can make a significant difference in the future, remains unclear. Even so, I firmly believe academic lawyers can and should strive – together with law students, practitioners, judges, policymakers and others – to improve New Zealand’s legal system, and because so much is at stake we all need to make a concerted effort to further this goal. The invitation to join members of the NZBA at their recent annual conference in Queenstown will, together with the opportunity to report regularly to “At the Bar” on current research activity at the University of Otago Legal Issues Centre, hopefully establish a mutually beneficial relationship that over time can provide original answers to basic questions that bother lawyers everywhere – including that posed by the conference theme: “Justice at any cost?” The Centre began work over three years ago following an endowment by philanthropists Grant and Marilyn Nelson of the Gama Foundation, who donated $1 million to establish a research centre dedicated to achieving a more accessible, affordable and efficient legal system. Since then the Gama Foundation has donated a further $1 million, which was increased to $3m by the government. Just over one year ago, whilst also taking up a chair in the Otago Law Faculty, I was appointed the Centre’s founding director. Our aim is to identify promising solutions to the problem of access to justice, with a view to shaping policy debates that will, either through research projects, procedural innovation or legislative reform,

eventually lead to improvements that ensure law genuinely serves citizens. A number of projects are in progress or in the pipeline, and some – such as the first phase of our Court User Survey - have been completed under the direction of Sir John Hansen (www.otago. ac.nz/law/lic/survey.html). Our immediate priority is to investigate trial delays, in part because of a protracted five-year legal battle involving the Gama Foundation that forced Grant Nelson to conclude that the legal system was far from satisfactory. Dame Margaret Bazley’s review of legal aid has raised similar concerns about the efficacy of legal service provision but, as I have argued elsewhere (‘Reforming Legal Aid’ [2010] NZLJ 5), her recommendations were inadequately supported both by empirical research – a point acknowledged in the Bazley report itself – and sustained academic commentary analysing reform options. This needs to change with a stronger partnership forged between academic and practising lawyers, that should also include social scientists, so that new responses to the challenges confronting the legal system can emerge, and especially for the relatively neglected field of civil procedure. One example of fruitful research collaboration that should interest NZBA members is our work comparing costs regimes in the light of international experience and, specifically, keynote speaker Lord Justice Jackson’s Review of Civil Litigation Costs in England & Wales. Together with Graham Taylor (a Wellington-based Barrister) and Jim Guest (a Dunedin-based litigation lawyer), we have co-authored a national report on costs and the funding of litigation in New Zealand. This forms part of an influential international project based at the Centre for SocioLegal Studies at Oxford University (see C. Hodges et al, The Costs and Funding of Civil Litigation: A Comparative Perspective (Hart, Oxford, 2010) ch.16) that has informed Lord Jackson’s review and the ensuing debate on which reforms should be implemented. Building on our court user surveys, which examine perceptions and levels of satisfaction with the current system, a second phase of research will explore basic principles and objectives that could, or should, govern the civil justice system. A series of discrete, yet inter-connected, projects – some of which are being conducted by doctoral students – will contribute to our ambitious Civil Justice Design Research Programme. In the medium-term, this should identify underlying principles and promising reform strategies capable of addressing endemic problems, but in a

manner respectful of New Zealand’s traditions and indigenous culture, whilst also being open to the advantages presented by new and emerging technology. These projects draw upon a range of interdisciplinary and comparative approaches that, for example, will investigate: the Disputes Tribunal, lawyer discipline, diagnosis and referral of legal issues, by-passing courts, stress induced by regulatory and litigation processes as well as the process of law reform itself. Our immediate focus is the costs and delays litigants experience when entering and passing through the present court system. We are undertaking a large-scale project looking at delays in our court system which should provide original data and a national overview of trial length that will inform, if not steer, current debates on how best to expedite trials. This project is an important prelude to developing alternative, possibly more radical, approaches that may deliver justice even more efficiently and effectively to citizens. Through opening up novel theoretical and comparative perspectives on civil justice, drawing upon neglected ideas and experiences found in legal theory, foreign and indigenous legal cultures and, where appropriate emergent technology, we intend to experiment through small-scale pilot studies with new ways of handling disputes that may be less stressful, fairer and more direct than formal procedures that tend to evolve reactively within official legal systems. In short, the Centre is committed to increasing the intellectual resources available to law reformers determined to improve New Zealand’s legal system. The Centre would be most interested to hear views about where and how this reform effort should be focused and has plans early next year to establish a national forum, comprising leaders from the legal professions as well as representatives of all stakeholders with an interest in the justice system. The idea is to establish a national “Justice Forum” that would meet on an annual basis in Wellington and we hope very much that your constituency would be willing to participate and actively contribute to this debate. Professor Kim Economides will be developing a number of these themes in his Inaugural Professorial Lecture “Measuring Law’s Impact: The Future of Socio-Legal Studies in Aotearoa New Zealand” on Wednesday 22 September 2010 at 5.30 pm, Moot Court. Richardson Building, University of Otago. For further information about the work of the Legal Issues Centre: www.otago.ac.nz/law/lic

WHAT MEMBERS NEED TO KNOW GST Changes for Barristers by Sam Basset Following the announcement of the 2010 Budget, the rate of Goods and Services Tax (GST) will be increased from 12.5% to 15% from 1 October 2010.

Barristers on a payments basis for GST

Barristers accounting for GST on the payments basis should carefully monitor and record fees received and expenses over the transition period to ensure GST is accounted for at the correct rate. Most Barristers will be registered on a payments basis for GST. As such, these Barristers will be required to include certain adjustments in their GST return for the period covering 30 September 2010. The adjustment required will be for any taxable supplies made or received that remain outstanding on the date of the rate change. The required adjustment as at 30 September 2010 involves three steps: 1. Establish the total amount payable in relation to all taxable supplies received (creditors). 2. Subtract the total amount receivable (debtors). 3.

Multiply the resulting total by an amount resulting from the old tax fraction (1/9) subtracted from the new tax fraction (3/23). The fraction to use for this adjustment is 4/207.

For most Barristers we would expect this calculation to produce a negative amount as their receivables will be higher than their payables as at 30 September 2010. This will mean that the adjustment will represent a positive cash amount which will be included in Box 13 of your 30 September 2010 GST return. If the adjustment is large enough to create a GST credit for the 30 September 2010 period this can be carried forward to offset against future GST payable. When a Barrister completes their GST returns post 1 October 2010, they will need to account for GST using the new GST rate of 15% on all their receipts and payments, as the above adjustment will have been made in their 30 September 2010 return. Clearly there will be an incentive for Barristers to invoice all their work in progress at 30 September 2010 at the rate of 12.5% GST.

This is particularly the case for work performed for non-GST registered clients’ e.g. family law cases, as work in progress invoiced after 1 October 2010 will need to be include GST at 15% not 12.5%.

Treatment of operating leases

Any leases entered into before 1 October 2010 and extending past that date will have to take into account GST at both the 12.5% and 15% rates. Each periodic instalment will be subject to the GST rate applicable at the time.

Treatment of entertainment expenses

You have the option of making the adjustment for nondeductible entertainment expenses at the new rate of 15% to add back a higher amount of GST for the entire income year, or use the 12.5% rate for expenditure incurred prior to the rate change and 15% for expenditure incurred after.

Systems Implications

A new GST code or rate of 15% will need to be created within the accounting system in addition to retaining the ‘old’ 12.5% rate and both rates will need to be in the system for at least several months after the effective changeover date of 1 October 2010.

Reporting

Going forward, GST will not be an easy ‘divide by 9’ calculation. Instead divide by 7.6666 (*recurring) will be applicable. The new fraction to use is 3/23 Any purpose built reporting tools such as spreadsheets and other reconciliation schedules will need to be amended to reflect the new rate of GST. Old rate - 12.5% Calculating the GST on GST inclusive amounts, e.g. $100 inclusive of GST Calculating the GST inclusive amount on a GST exclusive amount, e.g. $100

Divide by 9 e.g. 100/9 = $11.11

New rate - 15% Divide by 7.666 recurring or multiply by 3/23 e.g. 100/7.666 = $13.04 or 100 x 3/23 = $13.04

Multiply by 1.125

Multiply by 1.15

e.g. 100 x 1.125 = $112.50

e.g. 100 x 1.15 = $115.00

WHAT MEMBERS NEED TO KNOW Favourable transition rules

Suppliers can increase a “GST inclusive” price within 3 months of the rate increase unless the contract expressly precludes a gross up. Interest, late-filing and late payment penalties can be remitted if the GST error is due to the transition to the new GST rate and arises from 1 October 2010 to 31 December 2010. However, this does not cover shortfall penalties where GST is calculated at the incorrect rate. So what can you do about the GST rate increase now to ensure a smooth transition in October? Some ideas include: •

Review your computer and accounting system for generating invoices and ensure that they can cope with a change in rate. Add a new GST code to enable parallel processing of invoices and any credit notes.

• Review procedures for issuing credit/debit notes, bearing in mind the effect of the old rate.

•

Review long-term contractual obligations, agreements for successive supply, and agreements which involve progressive payments, such as lease agreement and credit contracts. For example, payment of local body rates in one instalment prior to 30 September 2010 would make sense.

•

Ensure all pricing is expressed as “plus GST”. If the contract is silent on GST or the price is expressed as “inclusive of GST”, the GST Act only gives a limited right to gross up the price.

•

Ensure that tax invoices received for payments made include the correct GST rate, as you will not be able to make a GST claim for the increased rate if the tax invoice does not reflect this.

Income Tax Changes for Barristers

In general, we expect the reduction in the top marginal tax rate from 38% to 33% to provide significant tax relief for barristers. The proposed drop in the company tax rate to 28% from 1 April 2011 could lead to more barristers looking at incorporating their practises. However, barristers will need to consider the implications of declaring dividends from companies to themselves as shareholders, which will trigger payment of the additional 5% resident withholding tax. The 28% company tax rate may encourage some established practitioners to retain profits taxed at the 28% corporate rate within their companies. This will create a timing benefit where only 28% tax is paid prior to declaring dividends from the company. There will also be changes to the 2010-2011 provisional tax calculations using the standard option, which will slightly reduce the 15 January 2011 and 7 May 2011 tax payments for the current year. Sam Bassett is a Partner from Markhams Auckland, Chartered Accountants who specialises in working with Barristers, and has assisted a number of Barristers with practice incorporation Phone 09 – 306 7103 or email sam.bassett@markhams.co.nz

WHAT MEMBERS NEED TO KNOW NZBA Mentoring Programme A reminder to members that the NZBA has a mentoring programme which aims to provide a means for less experienced practitioners and members who are new to the independent bar and/or to the NZBA with an opportunity to receive valuable support and guidance in their professional development from a senior member of the NZBA. The mentoring programme is an informal arrangement made between a mentor and mentee. The Bar Council is conscious that there are far too many variables to consider a “one size fits all” approach. For that reason, the aim of the programme is to be flexible in a way that allows a mentee to develop at a comfortable pace. Visit the “Professional Development” page of the NZBA website www.nzbar.org.nz to find out how to register as a mentor and/or mentee.

and contact details. Members can update their own details or send any changes in particulars to the NZBA administrator at nzbar@nzbar.org.nz. Members can also upload their photograph next to their details on the website. All that is required is a digital photograph of yourself, which you can take professionally or with a domestic digital camera. The photograph can then be emailed to nzbar@nzbar.org.nz. Members are encouraged to make use of this facility. It is useful to the public and it is also useful to other members of the Bar.

Annual Subscriptions The payment date of annual subscriptions was 20 May 2010. A reminder to members that services provided by the NZBA are dependent on members being financial.

NZBA Insurance Plan

NZBA “Find-A-Barrister” Directory The on-line directory is available on the website and includes information on practising barristers, their areas of practice

To enable Marsh to contact you prior to your renewal date, please contact Liam Pomfret at liam.pomfret@marsh.com. This will ensure you do not miss renewing your insurance and you maintain continuity with the NZBA Insurance Plan facility.

Over 800 years of English law Justis is an easy-to-search legal library of full text British, Irish and international case law and legislation from 1163 to the present day. Many of the most authoritative series are available as court-ready, printable PDFs.

Including:

Ź Ź Ź Ź Ź Ź

The Law Reports (1865 - present) English Reports (1220 - 1873) UK Statutes (1235 - present) State Trials (1163 - 1873) Irish Reports & Digests (1838 - present) The International Law Reports (1919 - present)

For a free trial of Justis, please visit www.justis.com/NZBAR2010

For more information please contact our sales team at sales@justis.com or +44 (0)20 7284 8080

BAR CHAT Justice Peters sworn in

Bar Council meetings

The President and Council of the Association offer their warm congratulations to NZBA member Mary Peters, appointed as a High Court Judge at a special sitting on 20 August 2010.

Members should feel free to contact any of the Bar Council members – or the Bar Association – with any matters they would like raised on their behalf at future Bar Council meetings.

New Bar Association members The Bar Association welcomes the following new members to the independent bar and/or the Bar Association: AUCKLAND/NORTHLAND:

Stephen Bonnar, Donna-Maree Cross, Anna Fitzgibbon, Anthony Jackson, Josh McBride, Annette Page, Simativa Perese, Bianca Saldanha, Belinda Sellars, Jeremy Sutton, Mark Sweetman, Rebecca Teirney

WAIKATO/BAY OF PLENTY: Nathan Smith, Oliver Moorcroft, Russell Wilson

DATE

EVENT

VENUE

08 October

Council Meeting and Bar Luncheon

Hamilton

03 December

Council Meeting and Christmas Drinks Function

Auckland

NZBA NATIONAL CALENDAR – MARK YOUR DIARIES NOW!

WELLINGTON:

Paul Chisnall, Claudia Geiringer

A list of NZBA events for 2010 can be found below. Programmes and registration forms are available on the events calendar page of the NZBA website www.nzbar.org.nz.

CHRISTCHURCH:

Aliza Eveleigh, Baden Meyer

Please note that these dates are subject to change.

OTAGO:

Nicola Vryenhoek

AUSTRALIA:

Simon Kerr SC

Members are encouraged to refer to the NZBA website for updates to this schedule.

DATE

SEMINAR

01 October

Social event: A fond farewell to Justice Baragwanath

02 October

ESR seminar: Toxicology Services, presented by Dr Keith Bedford, GM Forensics

13 October

Swearing-in ceremony: Justice Woolford

16 October

Criminal Law Update: presented by Professor Warren Brookbanks

21 October

Barristers Face Risks Too! The second of the NZBA business basics training programme followed by refreshments (complimentary event)

20 November

Criminal Law Update: presented by Associate Professor Scott Optican

23 November

Facts are Sacrosanct - The third of the NZBA professional development seminars for litigators

November / December

Pre-Christmas drinks functions

VENUE Level 28, Lumley Centre 88 Shortland Street Auckland 5:15-7pm Pioneer Women’s Hall Central Auckland 1-3pm Courtroom No 1, High Court, Auckland 4pm (seated by 3:50pm) Pioneer Women’s Hall, Central Auckland 1-3pm Marsh Ltd Level 18,151 Queen Street Central Auckland 4-6pm Pioneer Women’s Hall Central Auckland 1-3pm Central Auckland venue to be confirmed Regional venues to be confirmed

CONFERENCES AND EVENTS

Justice David Baragwanath: A fond farewell

Attendees will gain an understanding of the professional indemnity policy structure, the intended scope of cover and the conditions of the contract that must be adhered to in order to make a claim.

The Presidents and Councils of the NZBA and LRF invite members of the Associations to join us in a fond farewell for Justice David Baragwanath before he embarks on his next engagement.

Details are available from Monique Pearson at monique. pearson@nzbar.org.nz National seminars will be held during 2011 – dates and venues to be confirmed.

The drinks function will take place on Friday, 1 October 2010 at level 28, the Lumley Centre, 88 Shortland Street, Auckland commencing at 5:15pm.

Facts are Sacrosanct

UPCOMING EVENTS

If you would like to join us, please contact Monique Pearson at monique.pearson@nzbar.org.nz. Invitations are available for downloading on the NZBA website www.nzbar.org.nz

Justice Woolford: Swearing-in ceremony The Chief Justice and Higher Courts Judges invite members of the NZBA to attend a ceremonial sitting to welcome the Hon Justice Woolford to the High Court Bench in Auckland on Wednesday, 13 October 2010.

The third of the NZBA professional development seminars The NZBA is launching the third of its series of professional development seminars for litigators – Facts are Sacrosanct. It is trite that more often than not if a litigator looks after the facts, then the law will often look after itself. Facts will therefore be the central focus of the seminar in Auckland on Tuesday, 23 November 2010 The seminar focuses on the interaction between legal principles and facts both in the civil/regulatory and criminal areas. Junior/ intermediate litigators will learn about:

The swearing-in ceremony will take place in Courtroom No 1, High Court, Waterloo Quadrant commencing at 4:00pm. Guests are to take their places by 3:50pm.

• • • •

UPCOMING SEMINARS

Presenters include: Gerard Curry, Miriam Dean QC, Matthew Muir, Rebecca Edwards, John Haigh QC, Stephen Mills QC, Justin Smith and Simon Moore SC

Barristers Face Risks Too!

The second of the NZBA business basics programme seminars

Discovering and pursuing the relevant facts (including the various tools available for that purpose) Pleading/denying the facts Case theory Preparing briefs of evidence

Attendees should also look out for a short “test” on their fallibility of memory/observation.

Hosted by Marsh Ltd, this free seminar will provide attendees with an overview of the risks that barristers face in an everchanging environment; how those risks can be managed; and how professional indemnity cover should work as a last resort.

The seminar will be at the offices of Russell McVeagh, Level 30, 48 Shortland Street, commencing 1:15pm. There will be an opportunity for drinks at the conclusion of the seminar.

The seminar will take place in Auckland on Thursday, 21 October 2010

Facts are determinative and this is a seminar that should not be missed by any junior/intermediate litigators practising in the Courts.

Presenters include: Philip Rzepecky – Barrister at MGP Chambers Fleur Goodyear – Chartis Claims Liam Pomfret – Marsh Ltd

Places will be limited. Details are available from Monique Pearson at monique.pearson@nzbar.org.nz

CONFERENCES AND EVENTS INTERNATIONAL EVENTS Torts in Commercial Law Conference Sydney | 17 –18 December 2010 The University of New South Wales is hosting a conference entitled “Torts in Commercial Law”. From the introduction to the conference by the Chief Justice of Australia until the concluding paper by Lord Hoffmann, for two days leading academics, practitioners, and judges in the field of torts will attempt to solve, and to explain, some of the greatest puzzles presented by the law of torts, particularly for commercial law. For more information on the conference and online registration, please proceed to www.torts.unsw.edu.au or contact the conference coordinator, Amber Row, at (02) 9385 1803.

Australian Bar Association Conference Berlin | 3 – 6 July 2011 The conference will commence in Berlin on the evening of Sunday, 3 July 2011 and conclude with a gala dinner on Wednesday, 6 July 2011. The business sessions will take place at the Adlon Hotel. If you are interested in attending the ABA conference then please send your contact details to Dan O’Connor at mail@austbar.asn.au.

Junior Barristers’ Update Dear Jubes, always, I’d encourage you to pick up the phone or drop me an email if anything was on your mind and you could spare a couple of minutes to let me know about it.

It was great to see some of you at the annual conference in Queenstown earlier this month. I appreciate that attendance represented a significant time and cost investment, but I’m sure those of you who came will agree that the quality of the speakers, the entertainment on offer, and the opportunities to fraternise and network provided ample return. Special thanks must be given to those speakers who offered their hard work and expertise in preparing and providing written papers. Anyone who would like copies of the papers is welcome to contact me.

Til Christmas, if not at a drinks function or a training event before..! Toby Futter E: toby@futter.co.nz T: +64 9 308 0516

It’s startling to think that with spring here we’re approaching the final quarter of 2010. This time of year always seems to me to provide great excuse to socialise. In my short time in law I’ve realised I’m not alone among the profession! Under those auspices there are several forthcoming events which might be of interest in junior members. The first is the Legal Research Foundation’s third biennial quiz in Auckland on Wednesday 20 October. Quiz teams will be in tables of ten, although individuals are welcome and will be assigned. At stake is no less than “the intelligence trophy”; surely an item deserving of a place in the pool room..! RSVP by info@legalresearch.org.nz or by 09 309 9540. Also shortly although on a date to be announced by email, the Association will be hosting junior members drinks functions in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. With no particular agenda other than providing junior members the chance to come together for a chin wag and to better get to know each other, I do hope you’ll be there and make the most of an opportunity to be an active member of the profession. On the training front, on 23 November the Association will be running a half-day seminar entitled “Facts Are Sancrosanct”. This will look at the ways and means of pursuing facts in proceedings, briefing of evidence, and interactive analysis of facts in a criminal, regulatory and civil context. Presenters include Simon Moore SC, John Haigh QC, Miriam Dean QC, Stephen Mills QC, Gerard Curry, Richard Thompson, Justin Smith and Rebecca Edwards. Details will be advertised, and while the seminar is presently only scheduled for Auckland, if you think local demand exists please contact me – the possibility of further sessions is open. Lastly, some of you may be aware that changes are afoot regarding the maintenance and implementation of measures to ensure minimal standards of conduct among would-be junior barristers. The six-month experiential requirement was recently raised to three years, and it would seem likely that training requirements beyond the “professionals” courses will soon be introduced. If introduced some of us will be directly impacted by these changes, and those who follow in our footsteps certainly will be. For these reasons, and because junior barristers are uniquely and perhaps best placed to know what training junior barristers should require, the Association would be very interested to hear your thoughts on the topic. As

The path to success is to take action Solicitors, Associates Recover your Partners fees • &Keep costs low Get the work done

• • • • • •

get on top of an over load get research done take on an extra pairs of hands for discovery put office systems in place get efficient word processing & documentation done send your typing off site

Perfect digital dictation - confidential and guaranteed. Quick turn around of urgent work. Hours, days or weeks to suit your need and budget

Graduates, solicitors, barristers, legal secretaries and transcription services available All cost effective starting at $29.50 + GST per hour Recruitment fees can be unbundled to suit your budget and need. Phone 09 359 9244

email:jobs@legalpersonnel.co.nz

www.legalpersonnel.co.nz

Litigation Skills Course 2010

Reported by this year’s NZBA scholarship recipients, Vicki Scott and Sandy Ward Public Humiliation. Tears in the Corridor. Sleepless Nights. These are just some of the things I had been told about the Litigation Skills course prior to attending. So I was filled with trepidation when I arrived at Lincoln along with so many other lambs to the slaughter. I learnt quickly however, that there was safety in numbers! NZLS President, Jonathon Temm, was the Course Director. He was a strict Headmaster. Admonishing us for smoking behind the bike sheds, being late to class and drinking in the Bar after 8pm. Almost to the point where we were starting to pine for our teddies and our Mummies! But he was also an inspiring course leader who carried 95 participants along for the week, praising us when we felt at our most inadequate, and encouraging us when we felt the workload was impossible. Jonathon will be remembered on the 2010 course for his outstanding effort at mixing with all the participants and his genuine desire to get to know something about each one of them. By the end of the week, it seemed he knew ALL our names. He has a positively transparent passion for the Law and great pride in the Profession. He engendered loyalty and support between practitioners, achieving a “team” culture on the course. As they say, behind every successful man is a fabulous woman. Jonathon was ably assisted by Amy Wills of the NZLS. Amy did a fantastic impression of Elasta-Girl from the Incredibles. Arms stretched in every direction, corralling participants along, attending to their every whim and saving them from self-destruction. Amy divided us into four groups and each group was assigned a Team Leader. We were blessed with the laconic Judge Phil Connell from the mighty Waikato. He did a magnificent job of leading a bunch of sometimes bewildered and overwhelmed participants. He must have truly despaired of us at times. But like a dogged Chiefs supporter, he remained loyal, never deserting his team, and only having to ring his cowbell once – although I am not sure if that was out of sheer frustration or pride! The course consists of participants being required to carry out drills and exercises representing each part of a jury trial, with the end goal being a mock trial before a real jury. I found the most invaluable part of the course were two sessions on Case Analysis superbly presented by Paul Mabey QC for defence, and Rachel Adams for prosecution. We were also treated to some outstanding performances by Faculty members. For

me, the highlights were a cross-examination demonstration by Susan Hughes QC, and a defence closing by Brendan Horsley (Crown Law). The standard of the faculty was exceedingly high with so many judges, QC’s and the cream of the profession in attendance. They were universally generous with their time and well meaning with their critiques. The diversity they each bought to the course was very refreshing. I thank the Bar Association for the scholarship I was awarded to attend Litigation Skills. It is an invaluable learning tool and building block in professional development. I learnt more from it than any other CLE course I have attended. It raises the standard of each participant’s advocacy. I cannot speak more highly of it. It is a “must do” for every litigator. Vicki Scott

I wish to thank the New Zealand Bar Association for giving me the privilege to be able to attend the NZLS-CLE Litigation Skills Course in Christchurch. I was amazed by the amount of time given freely by Judges, Queen’s Counsel, Senior Counsel, the President of the New Zealand Law Society and the Director of the Course and all the senior Barristers and Solicitors throughout the country to teach us the skills “PREPARATION, PREPARATION, PREPARATION” to be able to conduct a jury trial with the right skills, techniques and the confidence in ourselves. The experience from approximately 200 faculty, the chance to be able to discuss our weaknesses and reinforce our strengths with the judges and the most senior counsel in New Zealand, was a very rewarding and lifelong gift that will be treasured. Hopefully, the ease with which the faculty gave their demonstrations will soon be ours. What would be helpful is that those demonstrations were recorded and given to the participants.

2010 - 2011 COUNCIL CONTACT DETAILS MIRIAM DEAN QC - President Ph: 0064 9 377 8959 Fax: 0064 9 377 8960 P O Box 4111, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 miriam@barrists.co.nz STEPHEN MILLS QC Ph: 0064 9 307 9820 Fax: 0064 9 307 1572 P O Box 4338, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 stephen.mills@shortlandchambers.co.nz CHRISTOPHER GUDSELL QC Ph: 0064 7 839 3290 Fax: 0064 7 834 0587 P O Box 19085, Hamilton, 3244 ctgudsell@xtra.co.nz KENNETH JOHNSTON Ph: 0064 4 372 3466 Fax: 0064 4 365 2592 P O Box 5058, Lambton Quay, Wellington, 6145 k-johnston@clear.net.nz TOBY FUTTER Ph: 0064 9 308 0516 Fax: 0064 9 308 0518 Bankside Chambers, Level 22, 88 Shortland Street, Auckland toby@futter.co.nz CATHERINE BIBBEY Ph: 0064 3 377 5589Fax: 0064 3 365 2592 P O Box 13-868, Armagh, Christchurch, 8141 c.e.bibbey@xtra.co.nz TIM CASTLE Ph: 0064 4 471 0523 Fax: 0064 4 471 0672 P O Box 10048, Wellington tim.castle@xtra.co.nz GERARD CURRY Ph: 0064 9 377 9783 Fax: 0064 9 377 9784 P O Box 106586, Auckland, 1143 gerard.curry@argylechambers.com KATE DAVENPORT Ph: 0064 9 307 8787 Fax: 0064 9 307 8788 P O Box 141, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 kate@katedavenport.co.nz ELLIOT HUDSON Ph: 0064 7 839 6644 Fax: 0064 7 839 6610 P O Box 19252, Hamilton, 3244 elliothudson@xtra.co.nz ANTHONY ROGERS Ph: 0064 9 377 4850 Fax: 0064 9 377 4850 P O Box 1771, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 agvr@xtra.co.nz

What I really felt was rewarding was the video critiques, where we got to see the ‘bad habits’ that we had picked up over the years.

MALCOLM WALLACE Ph: 0064 3 379 6976 Fax: 0064 3 365 2592 P O Box 13254, Armagh, Christchurch, 8141 malcolmwallace@bridgesidechambers.co.nz

I would like to take this opportunity to say that the dining room staff at Lincoln University were incredible. The meals that were provided to us were wonderful and full of energy - which was well needed.

CLIVE ELLIOTT Ph: 0064 9 309 1769 Fax: 0064 9 366 1599 P O Box 4338, Shortland Street, Auckland, 1140 elliott@shortlandchambers.co.nz

Sandy Ward

How Much Time Do You Spend Keeping Track of Your Time? How Much Time Remains Unbilled? How much time and money do you spend with the whole process of recording time and trying to bill your clients accurately based on manual timesheets? In January 2010, Kathy Kell established Legal Accounting Bureau Ltd (LAB), a Bureau that offers outsourced administration support for busy legal professions - including taking charge of manual timesheets - and is a cost-effective alternative to managing busy practice accounts. LAB is an ideal solution for barristers who rely on handwritten timesheets for billing purposes. The team can also take care of Legal Aid billing and take the headache out of GST returns. No matter where you are located in New Zealand, LAB can take care of your timesheets by using the industry-recognised software, juniorPartner. Simply send your handwritten timesheets into LAB using email, fax, or post â&#x20AC;&#x201C; whatever suits you best. Once the team has everything in order, you will be able to access your records via a secure portal on the internet and easily produce reports of your choice. In addition, if you need assistance or advice, the friendly LAB team is just a phone call away. To find out how the team at LAB can assist you, call Kathy Kell on (09) 444 1044 or email kathy@accountingbureau.co.nz Kathy Kell was employed by ADLS between 2004 and 2009 as Manager of their Law Firms Accounting Services Bureau. Her legal background spans 32 years and she is a qualified legal executive.