Lawtalk 828 by New Zealand Law Society

LawTalk 27 September 2013 · 828

Since 1993, the majorit y of law yers admitted each year have been women. Of law yers admitted since then who have made partner, 37% are female. What’s going on?

Need Research? Use us as your legal research provider

The NZLS Library, legal research and document delivery service is fast, efficient and thorough. With our extensive resources we can provide comprehensive cost-effective searches of case law and commentary both in New Zealand and internationally. F O R M O R E I N F O R M AT I O N A B O U T O U R S E R V I C E S :

www.lawsociety.org.nz/home/for-lawyers/law-library/services

A U C K L A N D auckland@nzlslibrary.org.nz 09 304 1020 W E L L I N G T O N wellington@nzlslibrary.org.nz 04 473 6202 C A N T E R B U R Y canterbury@nzlslibrary.org.nz 03 377 1852 O TA G O otago@nzlslibrary.org.nz 03 477 0596

Contents. The question to be asked in the law fraternity is not why more women aren’t succeeding but rather why so many are choosing to leave the profession.

Feature

Regulars People in the Law

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

Gallavin on litigation

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

13 15

In calling this piece The bad old days I want to look at the judicial relationship with the law of evidence – effectively lamenting what seems to me to be a slow return to the bad old days of largely misunderstood rules and a ridiculous plethora of exceptions.

Practising Well

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

Breaking the rules can be good for you. Some tips that might just help you get started on the path to being a rule breaker.

Legal services pricing

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

What is happening with legal services pricing on the world stage, how this might yet impact on the New Zealand profession and what can be done to anticipate that impact..

Moving towards CPD

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

The Continuing Professional Development Plan and Record .

Land on competition law

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

The Commerce Commission released new Mergers and Acquisitions Guidelines on 24 July. The guidelines are a useful summary for businesses and their advisors of the commission’s approach to the substantial lessening of competition test for mergers and business acquisitions.

Law Foundation

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

Why are so few women in the senior levels of law? Turei Mackey Law Talk journalist Turei Mackey looks at the current lack of women in the senior ranks of law, gauging the opinions of current lawyers and seeing what measures are being taken to improve the statistics.

Page 04

A Law Foundation-funded project provided critical evidence that helped overturn plans to remove the specialist training requirement for people who work with youth offenders. ............................................................................

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

Letter to the Editor CLANZmini

At CLANZmini 2013, the focus is on leadership in the in-house environment and how you can have influence in your organisation and help lead the way. .........................................................

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

NZLS CLE upcoming programmes Branch News

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

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

Lawyers Complaints Service Coming up

Classified Advertising

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

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

From the Law Society Nerissa Barber

his year marks the 120th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand. When women won the right to vote in 1893 there were no female lawyers. Dunedin’s Ethel Benjamin’s admission in 1897 would make New Zealand the first in the British Empire to have a practising female lawyer but for most of the 20th century the progress for women in law was slow. How things have changed in the legal profession, especially in the past 20 years. In 2013 women make up more than half of all legal graduates and admissions. More than 61% of all lawyers admitted in 2012 were woman and the percentage of female lawyers is now at 45%. Equality? Yes, in purely numerical terms. Yet statistics show women are still under-represented in senior roles of the profession from the judiciary to partnerships. Why should this be? Are the issues facing women institutional, cultural, psychological, or biological? This edition of Law Talk examines the issue from different angles and opinions. Some you’ll agree with, some you might not. It’s certainly something that needs to be discussed. Fortunately, many such discussions are already taking place, with

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

many senior members of the judiciary and our profession imparting great advice at forums and events held across the country. All young members of the profession, men and women, can benefit from the advice that often emerges from these forums: the value of sharing successes, especially with key people; under promise and over deliver; timeliness; the great experience you can get working in the provinces; self-belief; ensure, when appearing in litigation, that you do part of the leading; don’t specialise too soon; fling yourself into new opportunities; be prepared; become indispensable; if you raise a problem, have a solution you’re prepared to offer; don’t be fearful of making mistakes. And many more. In my own experience, and once again I think this applies regardless of gender, it’s vitally important to have good role models, mentors, and supportive networks. One of the main emphases of my time as Wellington branch President was the need to establish and cultivate professional networks. I take particular pride in the continuing work of the Wellington branch of the Law Society’s Women in Law Committee, of which I was a co-founder – lots of events and great discussions, open to all, male or female, and a terrific ‘can do’ attitude. We all benefit from such an approach. “No man is an island,” wrote the great English poet John Donne. No woman is, either. Let’s get talking! Nerissa Barber New Zealand Law Society Vice-President (Wellington)

LawTalk More than 12,000 copies of LawTalk are distributed each issue. The magazine of the New Zealand Law Society, LawTalk is sent to every lawyer in New Zealand who holds a current practising certificate. Although the number of lawyers with practising certificates varies, it is typically around 11,500. Others who receive LawTalk include members of the judiciary, Law Society associate members, legal executives, Members of Parliament, media, academics and others involved in the legal services industry.

26 Waring Taylor Street, Wellington

DX SP20202 or PO Box 5041, Lambton Quay, Wellington 6145, New Zealand Edi t o r: Frank Neill 04 463 2982 editor@lawsociety.org.nz Wri t ers : Elliot Sim 04 463 2902 elliot.sim@lawsociety.org.nz Turei Mackey 04 463 2910 turei.mackey@lawsociety.org.nz Advert i s ing: Christine Wilson 04 463 2905 advertising@lawsociety.org.nz S ubscript ion I nq u iries : subscriptions@lawsociety.org.nz Desig n: Andrew Jacombs 04 463 2981 andrew.jacombs@lawsociety.org.nz Print ing: Lithoprint, Wellington

ISSN 0114-989X

News Points New Trusts Act recommended A new Trusts Act has been recommended by the Law Commission. This recommendation comes in the commission’s report, Review of the Law of Trusts: A Trust Act for New Zealand, which was tabled in Parliament this month. The report makes 51 recommendations, including replacement of the Trustee Act 1956 with a new Act. The new Act would aim to modernise the statutory framework for trusts and address the law of trusts in a more comprehensive way The 1956 Trustee Act is inadequate for regulating the extensive and varied use of trusts, the commission says. The Act is difficult to understand and apply. The commission’s view is that modern, straightforward

default provisions are needed to aid trust practice. The administrative procedures in trusts legislation need to be accessible and applicable in the current context. Among the specific recommendations are improved procedures for the appointment and removal of trustees, a statement of the duties of trustees, a “refined approach” to the power of the courts to review the actions of trustees, replacement of the rule against perpetuities and Perpetuities Act with a new rule limiting the maximum duration of a trust, and a change to the remedies available under section 44C of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 by allowing courts to order the transfer of trust assets that, but for being placed in trust, would have been available as relationship property. The report, along with the six previous papers in the review, is available on the Law Commission’s website: www.lawcom.govt.nz

Recent law graduates earn less than peers Students who want to be high earners after graduation should choose almost any subject other than law, The Law Society Gazette, magazine of the Law Society of England and Wales, reported on 9 September. According to new research from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, recent law graduates earn less than the overall average salary of their peers.

Figures from the class of 2008/09 show that law graduates earned an average of £26,000 in November 2012, £1,500 less than the overall average of that year’s graduates. In January 2010, undergraduates and postgraduates from the same class earned £18,000, £3,000 below the median salary for all other subjects.

No single media regulator planned The Government has decided not to establish a single independent regulatory body to hear complaints across all news media formats at this time, Justice Minister Judith Collins announced on 12 September. This statement was in a joint media release by Ms Collins and Broadcasting Minister Craig Foss on the Government’s response

to a Law Commission report. The report, The News Media Meets “New Media”: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age, considered how unregulated news media could be regulated and/or if our current regulatory bodies should be extended to cover media such as blogs.

Lawtalk is printed on an environmentally responsible paper, produced using Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF), FSC® Certified Mixed Source pulp sourced from Well Managed & Legally Harvested Forests. The views expressed in LawTalk are not necessarily those of the New Zealand Law Society. Articles may be reproduced provided acknowledgment is given to LawTalk.

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

Why are so few women in the senior levels of law?

Feature by Turei Mackey

路 LawTalk 828 路 27 September 2013

he Wellington Women’s Lawyers not how do you succeed, but how do you stay?” Association in conjunction with Victoria While there are varying reasons, Ms McDonald University held an open panel discussays the difficulty of balancing a young family with sion on Suffrage Day, 19 September, to the required long hours for a senior lawyer is the celebrate the 100th year anniversary of most obvious barrier that has been documented Victoria’s first female law graduate, Harriette Vine. over time. In celebrating Ms Vine’s 1913 graduation – she “There are those high level cultural difficulties would go on to spend her entire career working and I mean that in terms of what exists in law firms with Whanganui law firm Treadwell and in society with gender roles, but and Gordon – the event also disthere is also the very fundamental cussed the current lack of women aspect that you need to have time in in the senior levels of law. order to succeed and when you start Since the 1990s, the legal profesfitting in other priorities, whether sion has seen more women admitted family or sport for example, it will than their male counterparts. The have an effect on your career. difference in the past 32 years has “When people want to get ahead moved from females making up 23% they have to put the time in and for of admissions in 1980 to 61% in 2012. those wanting a family, male or Yet despite females making up female, it is harder to do and with the Elisabeth the majority of new lawyers since law profession in particular because McDonald 1993, there is a sudden drop off of time does equate to success in most practising lawyers and those in cases. I don’t think there are any senior positions as careers progress. lawyers who won’t say they haven’t The overall percentage of women got to the level they’re at without in the judiciary is 36% while only putting in long hours of work.” 15% of Queen’s Counsel are women. Ms McDonald does agree law is losAnd while women make up close ing a wealth of talent if it isn’t retaining to 60% of non-partners in law firms, the number of female lawyers seen they only represent 22% when it to be leaving the profession. comes to partnerships. This improves That, she considers, has motito 37% when counting only lawyers vated law firms to try to change and admitted since 1993 – since when accommodate so they’re not losing Mar y female admissions have outnumall that expertise and all that talent. Scholtens bered male. This is still well below “But people who are in that position the 56% of lawyers admitted since and do work part-time still report it 1993 who are women. is somewhat difficult.” One of the panel members at the Fellow panellist Mary Scholtens Harriette Vine event, Victoria UniverQC went through a career break sity law associate professor Elisabeth and work re-entry when she had McDonald, also a previous Convenor her first child upon returning to New of the Women’s Consultative Group Zealand from the United Kingdom. of the NZLS, believes the question to She says three months after her be asked in the law fraternity is not son’s birth the desire to get back why more women aren’t succeeding into employment returned. but rather why so many are choosing “I was struggling at home without Louise to leave the profession. the structure of a working day, and Sziranyi “By the time women become a former colleague approached me eligible to be judges, which is seven to see if I could work part-time with years with a practising certificate, the numbers him at Customs Department. drop from around 60% to 30%. So when you think “But even at such an early stage my confidence about women being represented in [the] judiciary was low on re-entering work. However I worked it might not be as stark there overall. 20 hours a week until Edward turned two years “You have to remember that some of the old before applying for a full-time position with statistics are simply due to women not staying Crown Law. So in some ways it wasn’t difficult in the profession, so it is becoming a question of for me to re-enter the work force but the ongoing

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

challenges around child care and juggling a demanding job with family remained.” Ms Scholtens agrees the type of law career one selects can sometimes mean long hours at the office and will not always suit a life away from law. “In my field of law I think the culture of litigation, with its limited ability to control timing of work, time-consuming demands and associated stress, is a culture that fewer women would want to buy into, particularly if there are competing family responsibilities,” she says. Louise Sziranyi, managing partner at Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts, believes female lawyers could be selecting different pathways in the field of law instead of the traditional route that one

associates with the profession. “Back when I was starting my career in the 1980s a sign of seniority was that you would became a partner and that, in my view, is not the case now,” she says. “You don’t need to be a partner of a law firm to be seen as senior these days. I do think a reflection of the smaller representation of women at partnership level isn’t simply because it is harder but that people simply don’t want to do it. “They have found alternative ways to be self-employed, for instance working as sole practitioners or barristers, and so don’t have to wait to be self-employed within a firm via partnerships.”

Hard work, not gender, the key to success

ip Greenwood is one of New Zealand’s generally coincide with those years of working most successful corporate lawyers. A partner towards partnership. of Russell McVeagh, she has won the New When asked for any advice she might give women Zealand Dealmaker of the Year three times at the who want to follow her path, she suggests having ALB Australasian Law Awards and is currently a good support network is essential. For those who working on the Meridian IPO. are combining a career and family she When LawTalk contacted her to says “you can’t control everything at talk about the progress of women home – work out your priorities and in the legal profession, Pip shared outsource what you can”. her views. Pip also acknowledges that the use “People seem to think there is of technology in the modern world some invidious problem [for women] has created client expectations that in our profession but I don’t accept they will receive an instant response that this is the case. any day of the week and admits to “Like many others, law is a client clearing emails at 6am before getting driven profession and if you choose out of bed. “I’m sure I’m not the Pip this type of work, you need to accept only one at the firm who does this.” Greenwood you are in a service industry and She recognises it is about achievunderstand the demands that go ing the right balance. “I am not with that. Within Russell McVeagh, we have a saying work is more important than family, it’s lot of talented women and there is absolutely about using support networks and technology no reason why they can’t do well. ” and time management to successfully do both”. Pip was previously board chair at the firm But she emphasises that hard work is the real and says she welcomes younger partners and key to success and this is not gender specific. lawyers approaching her for advice on how to “If I am on a deal then I am on a deal. I can’t find their own path. She acknowledges there tell a Board of Directors I need to leave early for are challenges for women in progressing to another commitment. I chose this sort of work partnership when the years of having children and that goes with the territory.”

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

By the numbers

Information from the New Zealand Law Society which depicts the gender ratio across the legal profession. All data is from the Law Society Register of Lawyers unless otherwise stated.

45%

Overall Balance 45%

Of law yers are women

2013

44%

2010

2005

2000

27%

1995

1990

21%

39%

34%

22%

Director

59%

Partner

Non-Partner

57%

Lawyers in firms

27%

In-House

36%

Sole Practioners

Barristers

By t ype of practice

30%

LawTalk 828 路 27 September 2013 路

58%

61%

Data sourced from Crown Law

23%

20%

24%

District Court

High Court

2012

2000

2010 40%

Court of Appeal

Overall

36%

Supreme Court

1990

15%

The Judiciar y Data sourced from the Courts of NZ website.

63%

Queen’s Counsel

42%

1980

Admission to the legal profession

31%

Gender balance in senior roles Female partners and directors as % of all female admissions compared to men

Relative proportion of gender of partners and directors

55% 46%

44%

44% 37%

36%

27%

22% 18%

The percentage of lawyers of a given gender who are now partners or directors, grouped by year of admission. As should be expected, the longer a lawyer has been practising, the more likely they are to be a partner or director.

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

05-13

00-04

95-99

4.8%

05-13

00-04

95-99

90-94

85-89

80-84

75-79

70-74

2.3%

90-94

12%

85-89

21%

80-84

23%

75-79

24%

70-74

23%

The same data as the graph to the left, but stacked and scaled so as to show the relationship between the rates at which men and women make partner over time. This shows the rate women make partner has been remarkably flat over time: roughly 2 men for every woman.

Three barriers to women climbing the seniorit y ladder

hy are there fewer and fewer women the more senior the level you go in a profession? This question has been looked into by Dr Julia Porter, a member of the Ministry of Women’s Affair’s team which has released a report earlier this month titled Realising the opportunity: Addressing New Zealand’s leadership pipeline by attracting and retaining talented women. The report identifies three key areas – unconscious bias, career breaks and flexible working arrangements – as being barriers to women climbing the seniority ladder. The report draws from international, national and practitioner information across professions ranging from accountancy to law. Dr Porter says the report examines why, when women make up 65% of university graduates, there is such a drop off as the graduates continue in their profession. “It is complex and there are a lot of reasons, including the fact that women can tend to under sell themselves and lack confidence when it comes to going for senior roles,’’ Dr Porter says. “But from the ministry perspective, we wanted to focus on the demand side – what organisations can do to remove any barriers to women’s career progression. Even if women are well tooled and well skilled they’re still not operating on a level playing field if the organisation they’re working for isn’t aware of the barriers which do exist.’’ Dr Porter says the next step for the ministry will be to gather stories from New Zealand organisations and gather more specific New

Zealand information. “There are some law firms out there with good practices in place. The ministry would be keen to hear from them.”

Unconscious bias “We do all have it to varying degrees; we just don’t know we have an unconscious bias and that we make decisions using those stereotypes,” Dr Porter says. Unconscious bias is touted as being one of the factors in hindering a female’s career progression. A form of stereotyping, it occurs when someone unintentionally makes a quick judgement by using their unconscious knowledge. Dr Porter says when it comes to recruitment or seeking an employee to promote, unconscious bias can be pivotal in women being overlooked for senior roles. A 2010 study of New Zealand accountancy firms reported “women and ‘out of the box’ men could be held back by a paternalistic culture where partners favour junior staff who remind them of themselves”. “It is a judgement call because when you recruit or promote somebody, even if you have good selection criteria, you’re still making a judgement call and it isn’t a science,’’ Dr Porter says. “Most employers will say they pick their selections on merit and I hear many women saying they want to be selected for roles on their merit but the argument I would put forth is that people aren’t being selected on merit, due to an unconscious bias, so there isn’t the level

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

playing field and it gives, traditionally men, an advantage in these leadership roles.” The report states that while bias is subtle and difficult to change, taking a strategic approach in human resources and by those actively involved in recruitment and promotion would help organisations to counter the problem. This includes raising awareness on an individual and workplace level, creating procedures for recruitment, transparent performance related and promotion criteria, reentry, recognition, flexible working, and mixed gender recruitment panels. “Unless you choose to slow it down and have those mechanisms, including clear criteria, in place you will probably walk into a boardroom and they will all look like you or very similar,” Dr Porter says.

“Starting to get back in work after this time is hard and when you are back there is the stereotype that female professionals who have children view their career as secondary so therefore don’t have the same degree of commitment to their career and get sidelined in career progression.” The United Kingdom Executive Women in the Workplace Inquiry this year has recommended organisations formalise a career break and return to work scheme to ease the transition when women return to their employment. Dr Porter says the proposed scheme isn’t common in New Zealand although some organisations and companies may already be doing similar schemes in an informal manner. “Some organisations do maintain links with alumni and keep contact and help those who come back to re-enter the work environment with upskilling in new technology or seminars on updates and regaining clients. Because people re-entering employment may lack confidence and need help to quickly regain it.”

People aren’t being selected on merit, due to an unconscious bias, so there isn’t the level playing field and it gives, traditionally men, an advantage in these leadership roles

Career breaks and re-entry to work “By the time a woman gets to partner level there can possibly be up to a million dollars invested in them, via training and other forms of investment, so for the employer to get them back into the workforce is a good return on their investment,’’ says Dr Porter. Ernst & Young in Australia estimated that by encouraging female graduates and postgraduates back into the workforce and into their chosen career path, Australia would increase its return on education investment by $8 billion a year. New Zealand women are more likely to take a career break in the 30- to 34-year-old year age group, according to Household Labour Force survey. Female labour participation at that stage drops to 71%. This is when many New Zealand women will choose to start a family.

The benefits for both parties under flexibility are great and if it becomes mainstream use in the organisation then anyone can do it

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

Flexible work arrangements

“There was another piece of research done by Ernst & Young which showed women who worked part-time were more productive than those working longer hours because they were more focused working shorter hours. They did the project, achieved the results.” Flexible work arrangement is becoming more common for New Zealand lawyers, with different alternative work practices covered in LawTalk 825. Under the Employment Relations Act 2000, any employee who has, at the date of request, been working for their employer for the preceding six months may make a request for flexible work. The

Who is Harriette Vine? Ethel Benjamin has the honour of being New Zealand’s first female lawyer but there are notable lawyers who followed immediately after Ethel, including Dame Harriette Vine. Harriette Joanna Vine was born in Dunedin on 6 April 1878 to English immigrants Edward and Sarah Vine. She attended Anderson’s Bay School, and later Otago Girl’s High School. At some stage after 1894, Harriette relocated with her family to Whanganui. The Wanganui Herald records her as having passed the “Matriculation and solicitor’s general knowledge” University Examinations in 1904. In June 1913 Harriette was capped with her Bachelor of Laws by the Chancellor of the University of New Zealand, Sir Robert Stout, at the Victoria College capping ceremony in the Concert Chamber of the Wellington Town Hall. She would be conferred with a Master of Laws in 1915 and also completed accountancy qualifications. After graduating, Harriette returned to Whanganui where she spent her entire career working for the firm Treadwell and Gordon specialising in

Three barriers to women

banking, trust, wills and company work. Being among the very few females in a male dominated profession she attracted interest in the community on her arrival back to Whanganui but seemed to have a good rapport with her fellow lawyers and was known affectionately round the firm as “Venus” or “Hat”. Harriette was truly devoted to the law. So much so, she slept on a sofa in one room of her home along with six large glass-fronted bookcases which stored her rather substantial law library. Outside of the law, Harriette’s interests included volunteer work as a serving sister and secretary/treasurer with the St John Ambulance Association. In 1930 she became an officer of the Order of St John and was made a Dame of the British Empire in recognition of this work. Harriette also gained her pilot’s licence, which was another fairly rare accomplishment for a woman of that time. Harriette never married nor had children. She continued to work until her death when she was killed after being hit by a train in 1962 while walking home from work. She was 84 years old. Harriette’s last act was leaving her property in Watkins Street to the Whanganui City Council and today the land is now home to the Harriette Vine Kindergarten. From Wellington Women Lawyers Association with assistance from Victoria University of Wellington and Treadwell Gordon.

Continued...

Employment Relations Amendment Bill currently before Parliament will extend the right to all employees by removing the six-month requirement. International surveys have shown that flexible work arrangements are popular with employees but can be viewed negatively. Some staff in a UK survey by the Timewise Foundation felt their careers plateaued or were less valued than those of full-time staff. Also the lack of visibility created a perception that they were performing at a lower standard than full-time staff. “And it can be casual conversations like ‘she is

never in the office’ or ‘she only works part-time’ when she might not be, she might be working 70% of her time at home in a flexible work environment. But those things can undermine an employee and while they may be doing the same work their contribution isn’t being as valued and they’re out of the pipeline basically. “The benefits for both parties under flexibility are great and if it becomes mainstream use in the organisation then anyone can do it and it won’t be seen as something that just mums do and is not detrimental to your career,” Dr Porter says.

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

Tips for law yers & practices The Law Society of New South Wales has, over the past two years, been proactive in finding ways to support women who wish to remain in, return to or advance within the profession. The numbers of female lawyers in the state has grown from 20% in 1988 to 47% in 2012. The society has just released its progress report, Thought Leadership: Advancement of women in the profession, on its 12 recommendations from an initial report back in December 2011. President John Dobson said of the report: “Despite the growing number of female solicitors, feedback from our members across all segments of practice confirmed that women continue to face barriers and impediments in their legal career.” “It is a positive sign that the attrition rate for women is the lowest it has been in the profession overall and the lowest in 10 years for both women and men in private practice. The number of women becoming private practice partners for the first time is encouraging and the results of a recent survey suggest that women are strongly represented in senior in-house roles. There is, however, still more room for improvement.” The Law Council of Australia is currently conducting a National Attrition and Re-engagement Study set to be released near the end of this year. The following tips for practitioners and practices were collected during the Law Society of NSW’s roundtable discussions and were part of the organisation’s 12 recommendations:

Tips for practitioners 1. Identify your personal definition of success. Don’t judge your own career against others’. 2. Develop a career plan which anticipates major life changes. Don’t be worried when you change the plan. 3. Plan ahead for career breaks. Start talking to your employer early on and consider whether specific arrangements should be included in your employment contract. 4. Try to stay in touch with colleagues and clients during an absence from practice. Think about attending CPD. 5. Be prepared to make a business case for flexible working. You are more likely to be successful if there are benefi ts for your

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

employer as well as for you. 6. Be aware of the impact of flexible working on your colleagues. They are your greatest allies in making it work. 7. Identify a more senior practitioner to approach as a prospective mentor. 8. Look for opportunities to act as a mentor to a more junior practitioner. 9. Consider how networking could be given greater priority in your calendar to assist with developing your career or business development opportunities. 10. Prepare in advance for negotiations relating to promotion and salary. 11. Be brave. Work out what you want and ask for it.

Tips for practices 1. Practitioners are more likely to stay with your practice if they know there is a career pathway which matches their goals. 2. Think about the needs of staff returning to work after career breaks including rebuilding their client base or re-skilling. 3. Invite staff on parental or other extended leave to attend CPD and other events. 4. Ensure workplace policies, particularly for flexible working, are capable of implementation in practice. Find ways to make the policy work for individuals. 5. Ensure immediate supervisors do not make practitioners uncomfortable when they need to take sick or carers leave. 6. Make working off-site a practical reality by providing effective access to technology. 7. Don’t overestimate the resistance of clients to flexible work arrangements. Talk to them. 8. Consider establishing an in-house mentoring programme. 9. Arrange business development networking opportunities during business hours – and with a range of activities suited to both men and women – to accommodate a wider range of practitioners. 10. Be vigilant to avoid the perception that nonperformance related factors may affect salary or promotion. 11. To avoid a long hours culture, recognise the work done not the hours spent in the office.

People in the law Law firms and practitioners are invited to send in announcements of appointments, promotions, retirements or other information for this column. Submissions may be sent to editorial.lawtalk@lawsociety.org.nz. If possible, please include colour photographs of any persons mentioned. Image files should ideally be print resolution of 300dpi, and must be a minimum of 500 pixels wide for headshots, 2000 pixels wide for group shots. You can find the dimensions of an image in Windows by right clicking on an image file, going to ‘Properties’, and clicking on ‘Details’, or on a Mac by right clicking on the image file in the Finder and clicking ‘Get Info’. JPEG or TIFF formats are acceptable, BMP or GIF are unacceptable. If digital files are unavailable, hardcopy photographic prints of minimum 10cm x 15cm may be sent to LawTalk, DX SP20202 or PO Box 5041, Lambton Quay, Wellington 6145. We will endeavour to return hardcopy photographs, provided a return address is included.

People Australian lawyer Julie Read has been appointed chief executive and director of the Serious Fraud Office. Ms Read has been appointed for a term of three years and will take up her role on 21 October. Currently based in Hobart, Ms Read has over 20 years’ experience as a litigator, including 10 years with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) holding several senior executive roles. She is currently the special counsel (litigation) in ASIC’s Chief Legal Office, a position she has held since 2010.

On the Move DLA Phillips Fox has appointed Adam Holloway and Terence Ng as partners. Adam is part of the litigation team in Wellington and has been with the firm since 2003. He acts for both Adam Holloway commercial and public sector organisations, particularly in dispute resolution, health and safety, local government and public law. He has assisted with a number of coroner’s inquests. Adam also holds a sciTerence Ng ence degree in ecology and botany. Terence is a member the firm’s banking and finance team in Auckland. He has over 10 years’ experience representing both local and international institutions and supports clients in a range of complex transactions. He is fluent in Cantonese and Mandarin, and experienced at representing Chinese clients in their investment into New Zealand organisations. Madeleine Wright has joined Brookfields Lawyers. She will be working in the public sector, environment and resources team, where she will be assisting partners and their clients with resource management, local

government, and environmental law issues. Nikki Flexman has joined Rice + Co Lawyers as a senior litigation solicitor. Nikki is experienced in insurance and commercial litigation having acted for insurers, local government and corporates over the past 12 years. Rhodes & Co has appointed George Forbes as a partner. Mr Forbes is a corporate and commercial lawyer with broad-based transactional and business law experience. He returned to New Zealand in early 2012 after a number of years working at leading international firms in the United Kingdom. Duncan Cotterill has appointed two new partners in Wellington and Nelson. Nick Crang joins the firm in the capital, specialising in public law. He comes to Duncan Cotterill from Buddle Findlay where he was a partner and special counsel. Nick will provide public Nick Crang law and regulatory advice to government and private sector organisations. While experienced across a wide range of public sector and commercial issues, Nick has a particular focus on the Judith Harper telecommunications, broadcasting and energy sectors. Judith Harper has been promoted to partner in the Nelson office, where she specialises in corporate and commercial law and information technology law. Judith advises and assists corporates and public sector clients on a wide range of corporate and commercial

matters, including mergers and acquisitions, ICT and commercial contracts, joint ventures, company restructurings, securities offerings and general corporate and commercial law.

Law firm news Helen Rice has established Rice + Co Lawyers, a boutique commercial litigation and dispute resolution firm, in Auckland. Helen continues to act for insurers and local government. She is experienced in a wide range of commercial litigation specialising in multi-party disputes.

Catch up on LawTalk on the go

Or in a meeting. Or on a conference call. Or while cooking tea. Aren’t smartphones wonderful?

lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

People in the law

Law study leads to stress Over 60% of New Zealand law students believe their studies have resulted in high stress levels, according to a New Zealand Law Students’ Association (NZLSA) national survey. The NZLSA has released results of a mental wellness survey of 880 law students from each of the country’s six law schools. It conducted the survey in June 2013. The purpose of the project was to gain a picture of law students’ mental health to determine whether any issues existed and, if so, how NZLSA should act in response. When asked if they had a high level of stress as a student, 63.5% of respondents said they had high levels of stress mainly from being a student, 23% attributed stress to areas of life other than being a student, and 13.5% said they didn’t feel stress. 40% said legal study was a direct cause, with a further 55% saying it was at least a moderate cause. Students were asked to identify why they thought studying law was particularly stressful. Students were given a range of options

and could select more than one or none of the options. The factors students selected in the highest numbers were: • high expectations for top grades (selected by 89% of students); • the pressures of finding a job after law school (selected by 70% of students); • the number of readings (selected by 63% of students); • the amount of time that had to be dedicated to study (selected by 56% of students); and • the pressures exerted by other law students (selected by 51% of students). By contrast, only a quarter of students selected the number of examinations as a stressful factor of legal study, and only 18% said the number of papers required was stressful. The results showed a quarter of the students surveyed developed a clinical mental health disorder since starting at university, NZLSA president Seamus Woods says. Of those, he says, one in six affected

students believe their law studies were a direct cause of their illness, and a further half of affected students cite being a law student as a contributing factor. The disorders recorded include depression, anxiety, eating disorders and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). “These are disappointing, although unsurprising, results. But now that we have some home-grown evidence on the table, NZLSA can properly commit its time and resources to addressing this problem. “NZLSA clearly sees its role as doing what it can to protect the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealand’s law students, and coordinating regional Law Student Societies to do the same,” Mr Woods says. As a first step, the NZLSA/ DLA Phillips Fox Mental Wellness Guidebook for New Zealand Law Students has been published, providing holistic methods and study techniques on how to cope when things get tough. Hard copies of the guidebook will be distributed to each of the six law schools, and an online copy will also be available at www.nzlsa.co.nz. The survey results are also available on this website.

Auckland dominates student comps Auckland University dominated this year’s New Zealand Law Student competitions, held in Christchurch last month. Auckland teams won four of the five competitions and one was runner up in the fifth event following the finals day on 31 August. That gave the law school the President’s Prize for best all-round performance by a university. The Otago University team of Henry Benson-Pope and Tom Jemson stood between Auckland and a clean sweep when it headed off Auckland to win the Buddle Findlay negotiation event. For Auckland student Luke Sizer, his victory in the Russell McVeagh client interviewing contest along with Andrew McLeod, completed a double. Earlier in August, he travelled to Perth where he won the Australian Law Students’ Association’s client interviewing competition along with Philip Arnold, who was not available for the contest in Christchurch. The results of the 2013 New Zealand Law Student competitions are:

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

Bell Gully Open Mooting Winners: Tim Conder and Nupur Upadhyay (Auckland University). Runners up: Duncan McLachlan and Aric Shakur (Victoria University).

Minter Ellison Rudd Watts Witness Examination Winner: Caitlin Hollings (Auckland University). Runner up: Rhiannon Snell (Auckland University of Technology).

Buddle Findlay Negotiation

With the shield they won at the Australian Law Students’ Association client interviewing contest Philip Arnold (left) and Luke Sizer.

Winners: Henry Benson-Pope and Tom Jemson (Otago University). Runners up: Kimberly Eccles and Stephanie Panzic (Auckland University).

Runners up: Peter McKenzie-Bridle and Paul Comrie-Thomson.

Russell McVeagh Client Interviewing Winners: Luke Sizer and Andrew McLeod (Auckland University).

NZLSA Junior Mooting Winners: Matthew Budler and Tiann Nelson (Auckland University). Runners up: Cyrus Campbell and Melody Zhou (Canterbury University).

Gallavin on Litigation

The bad old days By Dr Chris Gallavin With a few columns down I thought to myself it was time to get both a little more technical and perhaps even a little more controversial. In calling this piece The bad old days I want to look at the judicial relationship with the law of evidence – effectively lamenting what seems to me to be a slow return to the bad old days of largely misunderstood rules and a ridiculous plethora of exceptions. The areas I particularly have in mind while writing this piece are the bread and butter of evidence for any litigator; relevance and probative value, hearsay, propensity and the notion of a residual judicial discretion to exclude. However, I suspect that the theme of my comment is equally applicable to the substantive law of New Zealand whether that be found in the Companies Act, the Crimes Act, employment law, or family law legislation. But let me start, if I may, with a rant. The law of evidence is about principle. In fact all law is about principle. We seem fascinated in New Zealand with the particularities of both fact and case-derived analysis and that, I suggest, diminishes the place of principle and degrades the quality of judicial reasoning. As I have suggested in previous pieces, I believe that we (universities) are failing law students with our inability to instil the knowledge and skill needed for complex argument based upon a nuanced understanding of, for example, public policy, history and philosophy – all of which are as important to understanding the law as is the need to find a precedent case “on all fours”. Most technical legal arguments are only as good as their relationship with the principles upon which they are based. In other words, if a judge is against you before you open your mouth then all the technical arguments in the world (I use “technical” here to mean “out of context”) will not convince him or her otherwise. Working on the premise that judicial reasoning is only as good as the submissions upon which it is founded, it is our unwillingness to engage the technical with principle that I believe often results in decisions in which a judge has either adopted a spurious line of reasoning, relied on notions

of inherent discretion, or overplayed the importance of particular rules (ie, relevance vis a vis s18 hearsay or s8 probative value versus prejudice). To take an extreme position to make my point, judges will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid decisions they do not want to make. This will often arise when they are faced with dense technical arguments the conclusion of which does not, for whatever reason, sit right with them. In such circumstances the entire regime of the law of evidence in New Zealand can be undermined.

Most technical legal arguments are only as good as their relationship with the principles upon which they are based

understand much more than the provisions of the Companies Act, Crimes Act (add your applicable area of specialised knowledge). Truly great litigators at all levels understand human nature, public policy, history and philosophy, and what’s more, they understand the interplay of those aspects of critical analysis with the legal parameters of the case before them. Despite this contention, I regularly encounter lawyers who quite comfortably tell me that they regard academia as an utter irrelevancy to the real world. When I hear such comments I merely smile and suppress the urge to audibly groan with the thought of how education is meant to liberate and inspire when we have all too often educated many into entrenched ignorance. So “what is the moral of this piece?” you may ask. Common law judges and “codes” make for a uneasy relationship. Discretion is often used to avoid technical arguments and is often regarded as the home base for a common law judge. But just like the application of technical arguments, the application of discretion is not without principle. Therefore, we must understand principles and the interplay of law with policy, philosophy and who we are as a community, for when we and our community criticise judges we in fact criticise ourselves. Dr Chris Gallavin is an Associate Professor and Dean of Law at Canterbury University. He has published extensively on criminal justice and on evidence and procedure in particular. He is the author of the appellant handbook, Evidence (LexisNexis, Wellington, 2008), and regularly undertakes consultant work in the area of the law of evidence.

The increasing complexity of the world spurs increased specialisation and within that process much is clearly gained, but also clearly lost. Litigators are one of the last bastions of generalisation within the law. That may seem to be a nonsensical statement given the specialised nature of Practice Management Software you can Trust litigation let alone the f r Sole Practitioners & Small & Medium-sized fi fo f rms vast array of particular • Affo ff rdab ffo a le Time Recording, Trust Accoun ab u ting, Debtor Control un branches of litigation. • Offi ff ce Accoun ffi u t, GST, Deeds, Marketing, NZLS Registers &c. un • Client Care, Legal Aid d Billing, Perfo f rmance Reports fo But, at least at the • Easy to learn, easy to use level of appellant • Save time & increase profi f ts fi advocacy, a litigator • That’s what users say! needs to be much • Visit our website fo f r testimonials fr f om fi f rms justt like your us ur r et Banking & Document Management rn • New - Intern more than an expert For a fr f ee illustrated booklet or demo contact: in the technicalities of relevance, propensity jPartner Systems Ltd Ph: (09) 445 4476 Fax: (04) 445 4474 evidence, hearsay E-mail: enquiries@j @ partner.co.nz @j etcetera etcetera, www.jpartner.co.nz and must likewise

juniorPartner

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

Practising Well

Breaking the rules can be good for you By Melanie Shaw This is a question I was pondering recently after confessing to a major rulebreaking incident in my childhood and the impact that had on me in my adult life. I can hear you all wondering about what I could have possibly done that was so bad. Well I forged my father’s signature on several letters to the school excusing me from any form of physical exercise. I can hear the gasps of shock and horror as I sit here. Needless to say, I was caught and punished for my dishonest behavior. I now live in fear of people thinking I am being dishonest and go to great lengths to prove my honesty in all aspects of life and this event happened over 26 years ago! However, I do still hate and avoid all physical exercise. It’s just that

friendships and the list goes on. Rules are everywhere and don’t get me wrong – this is a good thing but sometimes it can feel like we are constrained by so many rules we just feel like bursting free of them. On top of this, it can often be the case that in order to succeed we might need to break just a few of those rules. So here are some tips that might just help you get started on the path to being a rule breaker.

Play it safe or follow your dreams Most of us have a dream. Some are small, like getting a tattoo, and others are big, like moving to a new country, taking a year out and backpacking or giving up your successful job to become a street performer. So what is it that stops us – fear of failure, fear of the unknown or just because it’s not

develop new coping strategies and even when we get it wrong this can be a valuable lesson which helps redefine us as people. So even if you give up your job to become a singer and never make it past the X Factor audition, at least you tried, and you never know what else is in store for you. When I moved to New Zealand I actually had the dream of a quieter more relaxed life than my previous life in the busy, stressed-out UK. Well my life is now even busier than it was in the UK but less stressful and strangely more relaxed because I am more able to make different choices now and take more risks, which allows me the freedom to do what I want. Just the knowledge that the biggest risk of my life, moving from everything that was familiar to me to live in a strange place at the other side of the world, paid off is enough to give me the confidence to keep dreaming no matter how scary it might seem.

Don’t plan ahead, be spontaneous This one makes me cringe slightly as I am a planaholic, if there is such a thing, and of course there are times when planning is essential and makes our life easier but that doesn’t mean that a bit of spontaneity here and there doesn’t help brighten up life. The routine of daily life can become quite draining and leave us feeling as though we are stuck in a rut, so being spontaneous can give us a much needed boost in both energy and mood and help us push through some of the doldrums that we experience. Life can be stressful at times which can lead us to experience anxiety and depression when it feels like we are just not getting anywhere. So go on, be spontaneous and break free of your routine have some fun.

Be a little bit selfish Photo by Flickr User Eddie McFish Cbnd

I don’t need a note from my Dad these days! Life rules are taught to us throughout life. We learn early on about social norms and the things that will and will not be tolerated in mainstream society, in school (apparently forgery is a no go), within our families and

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

something we do? Well sometimes taking a risk is exactly what we need. Pushing our own boundaries can show us that we are always able to redefine our boundaries and push ourselves. By taking risks we learn new things, we

We are taught as children to share and consider others and not be selfish and this sticks with most of us through our adult lives, so when we make decisions based on self-interest we can end up feeling guilty. Saying “no” can become difficult as we continue to put others first, so that we can be seen as team players, but what happens when you just want to do your own thing and not support your friend or visit your in laws

Practising Well or even join the work social club. We can end up saying “yes” just to please others but in the long run we end up feeling resentful and tired of being there for everyone else. So being a little selfish at times can actually be good for you. Next time someone asks you to do something you are not so keen on ask yourself a few questions: Do I really want to do this? What will I get out of it? What will happen if I say no? Remember you cannot please everyone all of the time. You can, however, take charge of pleasing yourself and putting yourself on the list of important people. So go on, take some time to be a little selfish. “No” is not a dirty word.

Be assertive If you want to succeed you have to push yourself. It doesn’t just happen to us. It takes hard work and energy as well as selfbelief. But for some people, self-belief is mistaken for arrogance or aggression. Like selfishness, these are attributes that are frowned upon in society and as children we are taught to be more humble. But to get ahead, especially in the workplace, we need to have multiple skills and we do often need to be seen as go getters.

Pushing ahead can show that we believe in what we are doing, and we have passion and drive to get the job done, which employers love to see. Assertive behavior can get you ahead, both in the workplace and in your personal life as assertive behaviors are generally linked with having clear boundaries so that

I constantly look for new opportunities and new rules to bend to help me achieve my dreams you and others know what your limits are. When I think about the person I am today compared with the young woman who started on a career path in mental health over 20 years ago I have definitely gained skills in being assertive and going for what I want. This doesn’t mean I am aggressive, but I do have a very clear sense of what I will and

won’t do and why. It is this clear sense of myself that has helped me push forward and take chances, and even the setbacks which inevitably happen along the way have taught me valuable lessons. So from my humble beginnings as a letter forger to a mental health specialist my journey has been long and varied and I have most certainly broken the rules along the way. I have taken chances and pushed the limits to get what I wanted and I constantly look for new opportunities and new rules to bend to help me achieve my dreams. So don’t let life stop you. Instead go out and get what you want because anything is possible. Melanie Shaw has 20 years’ experience of working in the mental health field and has specialised in trauma therapy work in the United Kingdom where she has spent most of her career. While in New Zealand, Melanie has worked in in-patient settings as a senior clinician specialising in mental health rehabilitation and recovery with service users with high and complex needs. Melanie is now the mental health specialist at Lifeline Aotearoa where she works to support, develop and oversee mental health services with a significant focus on the National Depression Initiative and peer support services.

The perfect time to change your practice management system

Infinitylaw Document management

All types of documents in one place, fully searchable Interfaces to most popular MFD copiers Create and publish E-Discovery lists Enjoy a paperless office TO BOOK A DEMONSTRATION OR TO FIND OUT MORE

www.thomsonreuters.co.nz/infinitylaw

0800 10 60 60

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

Legal services pricing

Global law firm pricing trends •

By Richard Burcher On my decision to exit full-time legal practice and relocate to London to pursue full-time pricing consultancy work, I must have appeared to many at the time to have been barking mad. The first year here has been a roller coaster. Aside from invitations to speak at global events like the Commonwealth Law Conference in Hyderabad, India and the International Bar Association conference in Dublin, Ireland, my work has already taken me throughout England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales as well as working with international and global law firms in Paris, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Bermuda and New York. The professional excitement has been (sadly) matched with more personal dramas in the form of a stabbing outside our London apartment as a result of which I have been called as one of three main Crown witnesses to the young man’s death and the aftermath, in the resulting murder trial in the Old Bailey. Sitting in Criminal Law 101 in Auckland in 1976, who would have thought…..! My pricing work falls into five main categories: • intensive pricing training master classes run in-house for partners, senior associates and firms’ ‘C’ suite; • pricing retainer support arrangements with large law firms; • bespoke assistance to law firms on specific pitches, tenders, proposals and projects;

speaking engagements at conferences and partners’ retreats; and • research and publishing. I have been brought in by firms to help with pricing on a diverse array of projects. A few that spring to mind include: • assisting a legal panel member for the UK’s largest supermarket chain; • pricing legal work associated with both the Leveson inquiry and the new investigation into the Hillsborough football disaster; • pricing legal work associated with the installation of new fibre optic c a b l i n g i n We s t m i n s t e r A b b e y ;

•

pricing legal work associated with the construction and commissioning of a new North Sea oil rig; • pricing legal work associated with the construction and commissioning of a new floating harbour in the Falkland Islands; • pricing legal work associated with one of the best known global sportswear brands; • pricing legal work for one of England’s best-known public schools; • pricing litigation involving a portfolio of claims against US reinsurance underwriters totalling $US1 billion; and • advising on the pricing of injunction work against international auction houses like Christies and The expert in Sotheby’s on behalf professional liability of Jewish families and discipline and groups seeking to prevent the sale of LANE NEAVE LAWYERS art works and other CONTACT DUNCAN WEBB: treasures plundered T 03 3793 720 by the Nazis during M 021 244 3346 E duncan.webb@laneneave.co.nz the holocaust. The range of firms I have worked with has ranged from 15 www.laneneave.co.nz partners to some 400 partners and

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

turnovers of £10 million to some £500 million. Against this background, I thought it might be helpful to share with New Zealand colleagues some of my observations about what is happening on the world stage, how this might yet impact on the New Zealand profession and what can be done to anticipate that impact.

Global pricing trends MIGRATION OF PRICING FROM ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION TO ESSENTIAL SKILL Pricing is a skill. That’s it. No discussion. Anyone who thinks differently is living in a parallel universe; the one where all that is required to make a good living out of legal practice is just to open the office door in the morning and have a pulse. Over the last five years, all the other profitability levers have been pulled or are in the process of being pulled: cost cutting, redundancies, mergers, diversification, specialisation, restructuring. The one that has received little or no attention is pricing but many are now realising that it holds considerable promise, provided they treat it as a capability requiring commitment and investment. That trend is gaining pace.

PRICING IS BECOMING A MORE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS WITH CLIENTS Clients have made it quite clear that they want to be at the centre of the pricing process, and not be treated as an irritating complication. They want to see from their lawyers: • real efforts to reduce production costs – in other words, move away from a cost-plus mentality; • more pricing and payment options; • greater involvement and engagement in the pricing aspect of the relationship; • greater pricing transparency; • greater pricing certainty and budgetary predictability; • greater correlation between price and perceived value; and • greater risk sharing around fees.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRACTICE MANAGEMENT/PRICING SOFTWARE We are seeing a significant evolution in practice management software. Version 1.0 gave us little more than the ability to

Legal services pricing properly manage the trust account and the general ledger. Version 2.0 gave us, among other things, better financial reporting capability and online time recording functionality. However, version 2.0 is now woefully inadequate. What we have now with the next generation of practice management software is a much greater capacity to understand, analyse and plan the objective, arithmetical components of a legal project, but this still rather misses the point. There are important elements of subjectivity in pricing that the current software does not come anywhere near dealing with satisfactorily. The ability of the software to analyse subjectivity (an oxymoron?) is a long way off.

THE EMERGENCE OF PRICING SPECIALISTS IN FIRMS A new breed is slowly emerging – the Pricing Manager/Pricing Director. As pricing analysis, policy and strategy becomes increasingly important for firms’ competitiveness and profitability, they are looking for increased expertise in the area. This is proving to be a challenge because the skill set for the role is a unique one, falling as it does in a sort of no-man’s land between finance, business analytics, business development, marketing, sales and delivery/performance of the legal service. There is no shortage of financial and analytical skills in well-resourced firms but what is often missing is the “bridge” between this analytical approach and the subtleties and nuance that frankly only an experienced lawyer can bring to the analysis. Synthesising the art and the science of

pricing is where the real alchemy occurs; turning base capabilities into something precious and valuable from the firms’ perspective. Little wonder therefore that people with that combination of skills, qualifications and experience are like the proverbial “rocking horse droppings” – thin on the ground. Even small firms that can’t justify a designated pricing director must appoint a partner who will take real ownership of this responsibility.

Even small firms that can’t justify a designated pricing director must appoint a partner who will take real ownership of this responsibility. POLARISATION OF THE PROFESSION ALONG PRICING LINES Firms are coming to realise that they must not try to be all things to all people. They are taking a view as to their position in the marketplace and making a conscious decision to be The Warehouse or Farmers or Smith & Caugheys of their market. The dawning realisation that competing on price is not only soul destroying, but financially suicidal, will see much greater polarisation of service level, quality of advice

and pricing offerings than the relative homogeneity that still exists in many markets.

So, what to do? The New Zealand market has so far remained relatively unaffected by what is happening elsewhere, but that will change. The Australian market, which has stronger links to the UK market through international mergers, is already feeling the chilly breeze. Pundits, including the major banks’ research units, predict that over the next five years the UK profession will shrink by 25% by both firm numbers and practitioners. A third of all UK law firms report being under considerable financial pressure. Many law firms are limited liability partnerships requiring publication of their accounts. This shows that 19% are already balance sheet insolvent. While many of these are small firms, they do not have a monopoly on the malaise. There have been a string of high profile law firm liquidations in the last few months, including three firms larger than any in New Zealand. Around 30 of the top 200 (by turnover) law firms in England and Wales are under intensive supervision from the Solicitors Regulation Authority because of fears about their financial stability. It would be quite wrong to suggest that the struggle and demise of these firms has a single cause but one thing they invariably have in common is exceptionally poor pricing management. So, to the three key areas firms need to address: Continued on following page ...

Do you want to: - set fees based on current market intelligence - rather than guesswork? - more confidently explain and justify your charges to clients? - identify pricing that is inconsistent with your firm’s wider strategies?

visit LegalDatum.com to find out how

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

Legal services pricing PRICING GOVERNANCE The best results are achieved when there is a seamless vertical integration between the strategic and policy settings developed by the firm’s board, down through the finance and marketing functions and ending with the lawyers at the “coalface” who are the ones ultimately responsible for having the pricing conversation with clients.

PRICING EXECUTION Most lawyers say that they know their clients and the market and that they have an intuitive feel for what the client and the job will stand. In our experience, though, even the most experienced partners cede margin unnecessarily and often through a lack of empirical understanding of the clients’ pricing drivers. The development and consistent deployment of recognised pricing techniques such as price sensitivity analysis and price elasticity assessment should be undertaken long before any consideration is given to the fees to be charged to a particular client on a specific job. In other words, individual lawyers must

have the skills to price the client before pricing the job.

PRICING ANALYTICS Historically, profitability margins on most legal work were such that there was little need for precision. Since 2008, margins have been savagely squeezed with the result that firms can no longer indulge a “near enough is good enough” approach to managing margins. Firms must now have a deep and robust understanding of precisely what profit/ margins are generated by specific practice areas, teams, individual practitioners, individual clients and individual files. One thing you can do today is to find out reliably and accurately what your competitors are charging. Subscriptions have opened for the 2013 NZ Legal Pricing and Hourly Rates Survey and are open for a limited time. This year I am running the survey through LegalDatum, which is a joint venture between my firm Validatum™ and Beaton Capital. Other than that, it is the same quality pricing research and reporting that some 40% of all New Zealand law firms have already participated in over the last six years.

The LegalDatum subscription service is designed to help firms like yours: • set your prices based on accurate market intelligence rather than guesswork and anecdote; • more confidently explain and justify your fees to clients; • identify areas where your firm could be pricing more profitably; and • reduce complaints and cost assessments. It takes only around 10 minutes to complete the survey, which closes on Friday 18 October, and the report is due to be published in November 2013. Richard Burcher was in continuous legal practice for 30 years between 1980 and 2009. Since then, he has devoted himself full-time to providing pricing consultancy services to the legal profession and legal departments. Between 1984 and 2008, he was a New Zealand Law Society cost assessor. During this time he undertook, peer reviewed, mediated and gave opinions or expert witness evidence on or was otherwise involved in over 400 Law Society or privately instructed cost revisions, cost assessments and appeals.

Here, there and everywhere. With offices around the world, our client base and candidate reach is both extensive and impressive. For a confidential discussion contact Damian Hanna at damian.hanna@jlegal.com

JLegal – Your Global Career Strategists. new zealand level 1, 124 willis street, wellington t | +64 4 499 5949

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

www.jlegal.com find jlegal on new zealand melbourne sydney london singapore uae hong kong

Moving Towards CPD

The Continuing Professional Development Plan and Record (CPDPR) The CPDPR recognises learning is an ongoing process. You: • identify your learning needs; • make a general plan for addressing these needs, assigning priorities and identifying the best way of meeting them; • undertake specific activities to carry out the general plan; and • reflect on these activities. Over the last few issues, LawTalk has carried information on what is needed to develop a CPDPR. This information is available on the Law Society’s website at www.lawsociety. org.nz/cpd.

Reflection The final stage of your CPDPR involves you in documenting your participation in a CPD activity and completing your reflection. In the CPD context, “reflection” means thinking carefully and critically about the activities you have undertaken. You should try to identify any insights you gained about your current knowledge, practice and attitudes, where these have been reinforced and where you might need to modify your behaviour. A key question is: What would you like to do differently in the future and how would you go about this? You should also think about what else you need to learn. This will provide you with input into your CPD plan for the future – indeed, you

may even decide to amend your immediate goals and priorities. Reflection does not mean thinking about and evaluating the particular CPD activity you have been undertaking for the provider. This

A key question is: What would you like to do differently in the future and how would you go about this? is another process and very often involves some sort of evaluation form or questionnaire. It is carried out to help improve future activities. Reflection is about you, and what you have learned about yourself.

Why reflect? The goal of any CPD activity is to: • acquire and retain new knowledge and be able to apply it; • make connections between new and prior knowledge and alter your understanding accordingly; and • stimulate critical thinking and analysis, leading to new insights and appropriate changes to the way you think about and do things. This will benefit you, your clients and your organisation. Taking the time to reflect on and record your reflections is a key tool in making these things happen. The best time to reflect is during and immediately after each CPD activity. If you don’t do this, other matters will come up, you will put it off and then you will forget. CPD providers are encouraged to schedule reflection time into every CPD activity so you go away with at least the initial thinking completed and recorded.

H AV E YO U O R G A N I S E D YO U R CPD PLA N A N D R E CO R D FO R M AT ?

Order one for your firm today and be ready to record your CPD hours from 1 October.

www.cpdforlawyers.co.nz

Eat, play, work

Immigration Specialist

At Treadwell Gordon we think we have the balance about right. It’s about supporting great people to get the best out of life. If you want to have your cake and eat it then we want to talk to you. Treadwell Gordon – people first

Suite 3, 9 Remuera Road P O Box 109-059 Newmarket, Auckland W: jaglalimmigration.co.nz

Phone: (09) 522 2407 or: (09) 522 2340 Fax: (09) 522-2405 Mobile: (021) 079 5143 E: jag@jaglalimmigration.co.nz

Contact Jacqui Powell 06 349 0570

Wairere House, Cnr Somme Pde & Bates St, Whanganui

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

Land on Competition Law

New Mergers & Acquisitions Guidelines By John Land The Commerce Commission released new Mergers and Acquisitions Guidelines on 24 July. The guidelines are a useful summary for businesses and their advisors of the commission’s approach to the substantial lessening of competition test for mergers and business acquisitions under s47 of the Commerce Act 1986. They also usefully explain the commission’s processes for dealing with applications for clearance of mergers or business acquisitions. The guidelines are comprehensive and cover some 80 pages. Helpfully, they now bring into one place all the different guidelines published by the commission relevant to applications for clearance. The guidelines replace the previous Mergers and Acquisition Guidelines published in 2003 but also now also incorporate the separate guidelines published by the commission in relation to the treatment of mergers involving failing firms (2009), the commission’s clearance processes (2010), and the offering to the commission of undertakings to divest assets as a condition of a clearance application (2010). The guidelines are not intended to indicate any particular change in approach by the commission. To the extent that the guidelines are different from the previous guidelines of 2003, those changes reflect changes in case law and commission practice that were already apparent in its more recent clearance decisions. The guidelines cover the commission’s approach to some specific areas that were not discussed in the previous guidelines. For example they include the commission’s approach to bidding markets where prices are set by tender or auction, and to multisided markets where a business facilitates interactions between two or more distinct groups of customers (such as a newspaper which acts as a platform for both readers and advertisers). The greater sophistication of analysis in the guidelines should be of real assistance to those considering

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

implementing a merger or acquisition. Commission guidelines are important to the business community in providing clarification and increased certainty as to how competition law is applied in New Zealand. Overall, the new guidelines assist in that respect though there is at least one aspect of the guidelines (discussed below) which in my view reduces certainty. I will discuss two particular aspects of the new guidelines. First, I will discuss the analytical approach the commission uses to assess when a substantial lessening of competition is “likely” in terms of s47 of the Commerce Act. Secondly, I will discuss the change in language in the guidelines from “safe harbours” (representing situations where the market share analysis is such that

Commission guidelines are important to the business community in providing clarification and increased certainty as to how competition law is applied in New Zealand the commission would normally expect the parties would not need to apply for clearance) to mere “concentration indicators”. Under s47 of the Commerce Act a merger or business acquisition is prohibited if it has the effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in a market. In the Warehouse case,1 the Court of Appeal stated that a substantial lessening competition is “likely” if there is a “real and substantial risk” or “real chance” that will occur. The commission has reflected this test for likelihood in the guidelines. The commission has also noted that this means that a substantial lessening of competition can be considered to be a “likely” effect even

when this does not have a greater than 50% probability of occurring. The commission applies a form of counterfactual analysis to assess whether there is a substantial lessening of competition. This requires the commission to compare the likely state of competition if the merger proceeds with the likely state of competition in the scenario if the merger does not proceed. The scenario without the merger is usually referred to as the counterfactual. The commission then notes that because something can be likely even when the chance of it occurring is less than 50%, there may be multiple counterfactual scenarios that are “likely” without the merger. That was a point that was also made by the High Court in the Warehouse case.2 The commission notes in its guidelines that if competition would be substantially lessened in the scenario with the merger compared to any one of the likely counterfactual scenarios, then the merger will have a likely effect of substantially lessening competition. Again, that is consistent with the approach of the High Court in the Warehouse case.3 The guidelines go on to say that as a practical matter, the commission will usually focus its analysis on the likely counterfactual scenario that it considers the most competitive. Doing so means that the commission’s analysis is based on a worst case scenario, in the sense that it is the scenario that would give the rise to the greatest competition concerns. An example of a situation in which there may be more than one potential counterfactual is provided by failing firm cases. In such cases opponents to a merger may seek to show that there is a potential alternative acquirer of the assets of the so-called “failing firm”. The commission notes in its guidelines that the status quo may not provide a good guide as to the future state of the market if the target firm fails. The commission also sets out how it assesses whether a firm is failing.4 The acquirer of a failing firm will normally argue that the most likely counterfactual is the imminent closure of the target company’s business and the exit of that company from the market in question. On that basis the acquirer will contend that there is no difference in the level of competitive constraint between the situation in which the acquisition occurs and in the counterfactual, and therefore no substantial lessening of competition. However, in some cases there may be

Land on Competition Law an alternative counterfactual available, based on the acquisition by a third party of the target business as a going concern or of the assets of the business. If there is a “real chance” of a third party acquiring the business in question (in the absence of a sale to the parties seeking Commerce Commission clearance) then that scenario becomes a viable counterfactual. The commission must then compare the expected level of competition in the counterfactual where the third party acquires the business with the expected level of competition if the applicant acquires the business. If the difference is substantial then the commission should decline clearance for the acquisition. The commission’s approach of considering each counterfactual scenario that has a real chance of occurring is consistent with the position set out in the Woolworths case. However, it should be noted that a different approach has been suggested in Australia in the Metcash case.5 In that case, Justice Emmett (at first instance) and Justice Buchanan (in the Full Federal Court on appeal) both took the view that a counterfactual scenario could only be taken into account if it was established that the scenario was more likely than not to occur.6 Under such an approach there can only be one counterfactual. Accordingly, the commission’s analytical approach in the guidelines may still be open to debate in the future. An important change to the merger guidelines relates to the replacement of the commission’s “safe harbours” with “concentration indicators”. The introduction to the new guidelines claims that this is not a change in substance. The commission justifies the change by saying that the term “safe harbour” seemed to provide transacting parties with an unwarranted degree of comfort. The new guidelines state that concentration indicators are used to identify mergers which are less likely to raise competition concerns. A merger is unlikely to require a clearance application where, post-merger: a. the three largest firms in the market have a combined market share of less than 70%, and the merger firm’s combined market share is less than 40%; and/or b. the three largest firms in the market have a combined market share of 70% or more, and the merger firm’s combined market share is less than 20%. These “concentration indicators” are at the same level as the safe harbours in the commission’s previous guidelines. In the previous guidelines, the commission stated that the objective of specifying

safe harbours was to give guidance as to The commission’s decision to reduce which business acquisitions are unlikely the importance of market definition is a to substantially lessen competition. The further reason why the commission would commission stated in the previous guidelines be reluctant to allow businesses to place that the safe harbours provided a “screening too much weight on safe harbours based device” for the purposes of administrative in market share calculations. convenience. They were not intended as However, the value to business of the fora replacement for case-by-case analysis. mer safe harbours is significantly reduced by Framed in this way, the safe harbours downgrading them to mere “concentration were a helpful indication to business as to indicators”. The change to the terminology certain situations where an application for in the guidelines, while understandable, does clearance was not necessary. They were helpful reduce certainty to the business community. in providing a degree of certainty. The safe harbour levels were pitched at such a level that John Land is a senior competition law specialist it was hard to see how there could possibly at Bankside Chambers in Auckland. Formerly be a substantial lessening of competition if a partner of Kensington Swan for 20 years, he a merger fell within the safe harbours. can be contacted on 09 379 1513 or at john. Of course a party could not properly rely on land@bankside.co.nz. safe harbours unless markets were correctly defined and reasonably accurate information 1. Commerce Commission v Woolworths Limited (2008) 12 was possessed as to market shares within TCLR 194. 2. Woolworths Limited v Commerce Commission (2008) 8 NZBLC the relevant markets. If, for example, a 102, 128 at [116]. market was improperly defined too widely, 3. Woolworths Limited v Commerce Commission, supra n. [ ] at [122]. then it might appear that a proposed merger 4. Attachment E to Guidelines. would fall within safe harbours when that 5. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Metcash Trading Limited [2011] ATPR 42 – 368; Australian Competition was not in fact the case. and Consumer Commission v Metcash Trading Limited (2011) In its new guidelines, the commission 284 ALR 662. 6. See further John Land and Leela Cejnar Counterfactual correctly expresses a concern about this Analysis in Merger Reviews (2012) 25 NZNLR 103. 7. (2003) TCLR 868. issue. It states that if there is uncertainty about the appropriate market definition, the market definition that results in the worst case market share aggregation when applying the concentration indicators/ safe harbours should The Faculty of Law is now offering be adopted. That is up to two LLM Awards each year, to fair enough. encourage and support academically The new guidelines outstanding students undertake also downplay the a Masters of Laws (LLM) degree at importance of marThe Auckland Law School. ket definition to its The awards are intended to cover competition analysis at least half the recipients’ costs. generally. The comA Faculty of Law LLM Award will mission states that be worth $25,000 if awarded to a student paying international fees and what is important will be worth $15,000 for a student is that the commispaying domestic fees. sion considers all relevant competitive Applications close 15 November for students commencing study in constraints, includsemester one 2014. ing constraints from products outside the market as defined. For more information on the application That statement is process and how to apply visit: consistent with the www.law.auckland.ac.nz/ approach of the High llm-awards Court in Brambles New Zealand Ltd v Commerce Commission.7

Let us help you

earn while

you learn

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

Law Foundation Law Foundation project helps retain specialist youth advocates A Law Foundation-funded project provided critical evidence that helped overturn plans to remove the specialist training requirement for people who work with youth offenders. Alison Cleland’s research conclusively showed the importance and complexity of youth advocates’ work – and the value of retaining specialist training for them. Ms Cleland’s research, published in August 2012, coincided with Government plans to remove specialist criteria for youth advocates under the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Bill. Ms Cleland, a senior lecturer at Auckland University Law Faculty, says that the Law Society and other lobbyists used her report as evidence of youth advocates’ specialisation and uniqueness. “The Government finally agreed to remove the proposal that youth advocates should be brought under legal aid, and general standards applied,” she says. “They remain court-appointed specialist lawyers for young people. I think that is an extremely important way that the system recognises the needs of young clients. “You need to be a specialist to do the job well. The Bill suggested that anybody could do it. Well, anyone can’t. With young people, as with other groups, if you don’t do something well, you make it worse,” she says. At the report launch, Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft said New Zealand’s “extremely good” youth justice system was also significantly undervalued, and should not be taken for granted. “Your research gives our youth justice

system a good clean bill of health, but with improvements suggested – and these are noted … we will take your recommendations to heart,” he said. State-funded youth advocates help young offenders in courts and family group conferences throughout New Zealand. Ms Cleland’s research involved interviews with judges, advocates and youth aid workers from four youth court areas.

You need to be a specialist to do the job well. The Bill suggested that anybody could do it. Well, anyone can’t. “New Zealand is regarded as a world leader in youth justice practice, but until now there has been no research evidence to validate this view. Previous research has concentrated largely on what happens in family group conferences. A lot goes on before you get near the family group conference – the value of the restorative model is in doubt unless you can explain to young people what the purpose of it is.” She says the strong response from youth advocates to her interview requests provided a sound evidence base for her recommendations.“Thirty four of 36 youth

court advocates spoke to me. That large sample gave me an enormous amount of rich data to draw on. The Law Foundation funding enabled me to codify 1,100 pages of data.” She says the responses conclusively confirm the challenges faced by youth advocates. “Young people have limited ability to understand legal language and concepts. This is also true of adults, but especially of young people,” she says. “Many are damaged by abuse, and have limited ability to trust people. But once they understand the charges and the process, there is a chance for young people to get a really good outcome from the system.” The youth advocate goes beyond a basic interface and advocacy role to being a mentor and supporter, she says. Ms Cleland’s research recommends formal training for youth advocates, especially given that the original cadre of experienced advocates who started in 1989 are now beginning to retire. “None of the youth justice advocates have any formal training – 47% of those in my sample have between 16 and 30 years’ experience, and a lot have been in the system since 1989. There is a need to put comprehensive training in place for the next generation of youth advocates. We are very lucky that such good standards have been developed,” she says. A full copy of this research report can be downloaded from the Law Foundation’s website www.lawfoundation.org.nz under the Publications tab/Research Reports. A reminder, too, that applications for the NZ Law Foundation Cleary Memorial Prize close on 30 September. Lynda Hagen New Zealand Law Foundation Executive Director

Document IT Limited

JUSTITIA

Custom Microsoft Office Word templates programmed to suit your business and assist your workflow, allowing you time to focus on what you do best. www.DocIT.co.nz

Providing professional indemnity and specialist insurance products to the legal profession

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

Visit our website www.justitia.co.nz for further information and application forms or contact:

Mr Ross Meijer, Aon New Zealand

 (04) 819 4000 • fax (04) 819 4106 email: ross.meijer@aon.com

Letters to the Editor Lawyers choose to mitigate AML risks Mr Hart (AML Regime, letters, LawTalk 827, p26) says that the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) article mentioned after our paper Mitigate [AML/CFT Act] risks for business advantage (LawTalk 825, p12) refers only to the Financial Advisers Act. Lawyers’ exemptions under both acts, however, use the same phrase; FMA guidance that exemptions “have narrow application” remains instructive. He adds that the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), not FMA, might become lawyers’ supervisor. DIA is currently “default”

supervisor for “other” businesses, but when the exemption is lifted lawyers’ supervisor may be an existing one, or not – eg NZLS. No decision has been made. Mr Hart opines that “current potential compliance obligations for lawyers” have been overstated in recent articles. However: The AML/CFT Act is already affecting lawyers’ practices (Stop criminals misusing legal services, LawTalk 824, p18). Rabobank’s plea in the letter preceding Mr Hart’s is a practical example. Firms can take simple measures to cut their business risks. (Mitigate risks for business advantage, LawTalk 825, p12). Damian Schade’s article about AML insurance (p27) in the same issue as Mr Hart’s letter is a practical example. The Act is a timely reminder of lawyers’

existing obligations to report suspicious transactions. These are simple facts, neither over- nor understated, we think. Much like firms’ options. Equally matter of fact: • some may choose to do more than the minimum currently required, to protect their business; • others may verify their existing obligations are being met, as a basic compliance check; and • some might apply a “strategy” of hope; that what they’re not looking for isn’t happening. Ron Pol and Ashley Balls amlAssurance.com

CLANZ

Registrations now open for CLANZmini

Why mini? CLANZ knows your time is precious and so is your budget. That’s why it has come up with CLANZmini, a half day conference delivering you targeted professional development (up to four hours towards your CPD requirements),

engaging speakers and the opportunity to connect with other lawyers, all in one afternoon and at exceptional value. All lawyers are welcome to attend this little conference that will deliver a lot. Register now. Spaces are limited and will be allocated in the order they are received.

It has been said that a leader is one who “knows the way, goes the way and shows the way”. At CLANZmini 2013, the focus is on leadership in the in-house environment and how you can have influence in your organisation and help lead the way. A fantastic line up of speakers will provide insight into what leadership means to them and what it looks like in the in-house environment. The programme features sessions led by in-house legal speakers on: What is Leadership? Young Leadership, Team Leadership, Ethical Leadership and Personal Leadership. In both Auckland and Wellington there will be an encore performance from one of the highlight speakers at the CLANZ 2013 annual conference, Henare O’Keefe, who will speak on Social Leadership. For a full list of speakers visit the CLANZ website. LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

CPD CalenDar Programme

Presenters

Content

Where

When

Civil introduction to High Court Civil litigation Skills

Sandra Grant Judge Joyce QC or Niki Pender Paul Radich

Mediating Dangerously

This two-day workshop is an excellent opportunity for recently admitted practitioners to Auckland 1 develop practical skills in civil litigation in an intense small-group workshop. Don’t miss this Wellington chance to ensure that you will be able to face a court case with confidence! You will improve Auckland 2 your advocacy skills while you learn how to handle a single file from beginning to end, be able to identify and understand the various steps in the process, develop the practical skills you need to handle this and a range of other litigation files, competently and confidently.

14-15 Oct 29-30 Oct 25-26 Nov

see listing under General

CoMMerCial Takeovers intensive

Chair: David Jones MNZM

The intensive starts with an introduction to some of the recent changes and developments, Wellington followed by an interactive case study in which the presenters will scrutinise a case from Auckland the point of view of the different market participants who may be involved in a takeover. This is a must to improve your understanding of the Code, and its application in a practical environment.

Criminal appellate advocacy

Dr Mathew Downs Warren Pyke

Attend this seminar to receive a valuable insight into how to prepare and present appeals to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. This seminar will benefit you as a criminal lawyer regardless of whether you are new to the profession or have reasonable experience.

23 Oct 24 Oct

CriMinal

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

Dunedin Christchurch Wellington Auckland

21 Oct 22 Oct 29 Oct 30 Oct

Centre

Intro

Assessment

Practice Court

Manukau Whangarei

13 September 13 September

18 October 18 October (in Mnku)

19 October 19 October (in Mnku)

FaMilY introduction to Family law advocacy and Practice

Judge Adams Usha Patel

In following through a case you will learn how to master the core tasks, methods, strategies Christchurch and documentary and non-documentary procedures you need to know if you are to represent Auckland your client in a competent and professional manner. Put the jigsaw together and get the total Wellington picture. Through precedents, videos, a book of materials, and performance critique, this course, recommended by the Legal Services Agency, is sound, participatory and proven.

7-8 Oct 10-11 Oct 14-15 Oct

Family law Conference

Chair: Antony Mahon

The 2013 Family Law Conference is a not-to-be-missed event providing practitioners Auckland with two days of the latest updates and research in family law.

21-22 Nov

As an adjunct to the conference, two concurrently run half-day pre-conference workshops Auckland have been added for a more in-depth look at Lawyer for the Child in the brave new world of Family Court reforms and Drafting s 21 settlement agreements. (An additional charge applies for the workshops.)

20 Nov

Mediating Dangerously

see listing under General

ProPerTY The Difficult Property File

Linda Fox Peter Wright

All residential property files are not equal. Some proceed very smoothly and others just go wrong. Potential problem signals are easily missed or overlooked. This seminar will go through the three stages of the sale and purchase process, negotiation, contract and settlement, looking at how to avoid issues and, if unavoidable, what to do when the file hits the wall. Webinar for smaller centres.

The role of the Trustee Helen Dervan Jeremy Johnson

Attend this seminar to make sure you are fully informed about the role of the trustee, including what it means for lawyers acting as trustees either as individuals, or using trustee companies, and be alerted to the risks that assuming the role of a trustee entails. This seminar will also consider important developments in recent case law. Webinar for smaller centres.

Dunedin Christchurch Wellington Auckland Webinar

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

16 Oct

Dunedin Christchurch Wellington Auckland

11 Nov 12 Nov 20 Nov 21 Nov

Webinar

20 Nov

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

14 Oct 15 Oct 16 Oct 17 Oct

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

Programme

Presenters

Content

Where

When

General Stepping Up – foundation for practising on own account

Director: John Mackintosh

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

7-9 Nov

Trust account Supervisor Training Programme

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

To qualify as a trust account supervisor, you must complete 40-55 hours’ preparation, attend Auckland 2 the assessment day and pass all assessments. Make sure you register in time to do the Christchurch preparatory work before the assessment day as listed on the right.

20 Nov 27 Nov

The nZlS CPD rules – a practical guide

Neil Gold Christine Grice Chris Moore

This interactive free, succinct and practical seminar is to show you how to apply the rules to Visiting 13 maintain and improve your competency and get the best value from your CPD for you, for your centres around NZ firm and for your clients. This seminar is free of charge, but you must register!

11-23 Oct

Webinar for smaller centres.

Webinar

17 Oct

Webinar

15 Oct

Webinar

21 Oct

Auckland Dunedin Christchurch Wellington Hamilton

31 Oct 4 Nov 5 Nov 6 Nov 7 Nov

Webinar

6 Nov

Visit www.lawyerseducation.co.nz for full details. Trusts can survive a relationship breakdown – myth or reality

Vanessa Bruton

This webinar will discuss four key points: fairness vs form; the sham/no intention, and fairness risks to trusts; lessons from Clayton and other recent cases; and tips to maximise the survival of a trust in a relationship split.

iT Projects and Disputes

Michael Bywell

The recent issues surrounding Novopay once again highlight challenges with getting IT procurement right and the consequences when things do go wrong. Attend this webinar to receive practical legal and commercial insights into smarter contracting and how to avoid, manage and resolve these sorts of issues.

Update on Contract

Paul David

Contract law is at the heart of commercial law and practice. A sound up-to-date knowledge of the area is essential for all lawyers. This seminar will cover recent court decisions and legislative changes in a practical way. Topics include: formation, interpretation, implied terms, exclusion clauses, cancellation, frustration, the assessment of damages, liquidated damages and penalties and concurrent liability. Webinar for smaller centres.

reading accounts and Balance Sheets

Lloyd Austin

While it is not necessary for you to have the financial insight that might be expected of an accountant, you should know how financial statements are put together and know how to ask the right questions and identify warning signs, discuss financial statements intelligently with a client, and know when to call in specialist assistance. This workshop will enable you to unlock the mysteries of financial documents.

Auckland Hamilton Wellington Christchurch

5-6 Nov 11-12 Nov 18-19 Nov 20-21 Nov

lawyer as negotiator

Jane Chart

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

12-13 Nov 19-20 Nov

Mediating Dangerously

Prof Kenneth Cloke

Ken is a world authority on mediation and was the inaugural President of the international Auckland organisation Mediators Beyond Borders. He specialises in resolving conflicts in all contexts Wellington and at all levels – complex multiparty disputes, commercial grievances, family matters, employment problems and public policy disputes. His transformative approach to mediation has become synonymous with the title of this workshop and of his well-known textbook Mediating Dangerously.

15 Nov 18 Nov

in SHorT SeMinar SerieS – aUCklanD Commerce act reforms: cartels and criminalisation

Matthew Dunning QC Troy Pilkington

How to identify a cartel provision and keep your client out of jail: understanding the most Auckland significant reforms to the Commerce Act since its 1986 enactment.

8 Oct

Small business sale and purchase – getting it right

Jesse Nguy

Are you aware of the key factors that need to be taken into account for the successful sale and Auckland purchase of a small business? This seminar will highlight the practical issues that you need to focus on.

29 Oct

Online registration and booklet purchases (with cheque, direct credit and credit card payment options) available at www.lawyerseducation.co.nz LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

Branch News A good turnout of just over 30 people attended the women lawyers’ lunch, held at the Vidal Estate Wintery, Hastings on Friday 6 September. As well as the women lawyers, Judges Anna Skellern and Bridget Mackintosh also enjoyed the dinner.

In a venue that would have made Jay Gatsby himself jealous, Jonny and the Dreamboats serenaded those attending with smooth jazz before everyone twirled the night away. The Young Lawyers Committee would like to thank The Boatshed, Jonny and the Dreamboats, and Elaine Harris of Fine Cuisine for their assistance in creating a night not soon to be forgotten.

Wellington

Gisborne

Hawke’s Bay

Women lawyers’ lunch

Chinese delegation to visit

Bar dinner

A delegation from China, in New Zealand to share approaches and seek assistance on moves to prevent corruption in government, will visit the Wellington branch on 4 October. The delegation is being led by Mr Yang Xiaodu, a member of the Standing Committee and Secretary of the Disciplinary Committee of the CPC Shanghai Municipal Committee. Shanghai is a pilot for reform within China, which is currently undergoing large-scale reform. This involves attempting to achieve greater transparency and accountability around government spending in a drive to reduce corruption in the Chinese system. China has taken a great interest in New Zealand because we are frequently rated among the most transparent and anti-corrupt countries globally.

The Gisborne branch had an enjoyable bar dinner at Soho restaurant on Thursday 15 August. Thanks to Joe Martin, Tiana Epati and Judge Skellern for their great toasts. It was a good turn out and everyone enjoyed a lovely meal, great conversation and a boogie to finish off the night.

Young Professionals Ball The Wellington Young Lawyers Committee hosted the annual Young Professionals Ball on Saturday 31 August. 300 young professionals donned their glad rags and descended on The Boatshed for a night of glitz and glamour, Great Gatsby style. It was a night filled with sparkly headpieces, pocket squares, delicious delicacies from Fine Cuisine, and even some hooch at the juice joint.

Southland

Trust accounting seminar A trust accounting seminar was held at the Invercargill courthouse from 1pm to 2pm on 23 September. New Zealand Law Society inspector David Littlefair presented the seminar, which was entitled Twenty Things You Should Know about Your Trust Account.

Courts minister visit The Minister for Courts, Chester Borrows, will visit the Southland branch on 14 October. Practitioners are welcome to meet Mr Borrows at the Invercargill courthouse between 1pm and 2pm.

meet with Gore practitioners following the next Council meeting on 16 October. This “meet and greet”, which the branch holds annually, will be held at the Thomas Green Restaurant in Gore from 5pm to 7pm.

Waikato Bay of Plenty

Bar dinner A bar dinner to welcome Judge David Ruth to Hamilton and acknowledge his appointment to the bench will be held on 11 October. The dinner will start at 7pm at Sky City, Hamilton.

Canterbury-Westland

South Island Devil’s Own golf The SBS South Island Devil’s Own Golf Tournament will be held at the Methven Golf Club from Friday 1 November to Sunday 3 November. Twelve trophies are at stake in the tournament, which is open to any retired or present occupant of the bench or to any QC, barrister, solicitor, legal executive or to the sponsors. For an entry form, email susan.newman@ lawsociety.org.nz. Entries close on Friday 11 October.

Family law dinner An informal family law dinner will be held at the Visions on Campus Restaurant on 17 October. The event begins with pre dinner drinks at 6:30pm, followed by dinner at 7pm. The dinner is limited to 100 registrations. To register, email val.mcturk@lawsociety.org.nz.

Annual meeting with Gore lawyers Southland branch Council members will

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

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

Lawyers Complaints Service

Percentage contingency fees not permitted Michael Meyrick of Auckland has been fined $2,000 after a lawyers standards committee made findings of unsatisfactory conduct against him. He had arranged to charge a fee that was a fixed percentage of any wages recovered and he had taken the filing fee from each client, but had then failed to file the proceedings. Mr Meyrick had promised to represent a group of employees, who each paid him $100 in May 2011 to cover the costs of filing their similar claims to be made in the Employment Relations Authority. The complainant stated that each employee signed a document agreeing to pay Mr Meyrick 15% of any back pay they received as a result of the claim. In November 2011, Mr Meyrick informed the parties that he had not filed the claims, and

so there would be no recovery. Mr Meyrick failed to respond to numerous emails and calls, and failed to refund the $100 paid to him by each employee. The committee found that Mr Meyrick had breached Rules 3.2 and 3.3 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care for failing to file the proceedings and for failing to respond to queries from the complainant in a timely manner. The committee also found he had breached Rule 9.8, in that conditional fee agreements are not permitted to make provision for a contingency fee based on a fixed percentage, pursuant to ss333-335 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The complainant submitted details of compensation she would have been entitled to had her claim been lodged in the

Employment Relations Authority in time. It totalled $17,038.28. The committee said that it considered the complainant may have a claim against Mr Meyrick for any losses she may have suffered, but that the appropriate forum for determining losses of that nature was through the courts. The committee said that in its view the unsatisfactory conduct was at the higher end of the scale and that it was appropriate to censure Mr Meyrick and order him to pay a fine of $2,000. The committee also ordered him to refund the complainant $100 and pay the Law Society $1,250 costs. The committee also ordered publication of Mr Meyrick’s name, saying it was desirable in the public interest to do so.

Fined for failing to comply with standards committee order Failing to comply with a previous lawyers standards committee order has seen an Auckland lawyer, J, being censured and fined $5,000. The initial complaint was that J had refused to return a deposit held in his trust account after a property sale and purchase had not proceeded. J was the sole director and shareholder of the vendor, and his legal firm acted for the vendor in the transaction. It transpired that the deposit was no longer held in J’s trust account and it had been paid out to another party. In its determination dated 18 April 2012, the Auckland Standards Committee found that the deposit had been wrongly paid out and ordered J to pay an amount equivalent to the deposit paid by the complainants back into his trust account to be held as a stakeholder. The order was to be complied with within 30 working days. Subsequently, the complainants’ lawyers complained (on the complainants’ behalf) that J had failed to comply with that order. J responded to that complaint in August 2012 saying he was waiting for advice from

his insurer as to how to deal with the matter. The Law Society’s legal standards officer attempted to obtain further advice and responses from J, but failed until October, when J reiterated that he was still awaiting advice from his insurers. On 4 March 2013, J sent an email to the complainants’ lawyers saying: “On a without prejudice basis, I would like to resolve this matter now by reimbursing the deposit paid of $29,500 on the condition that the latest complaint against me is withdrawn.” On 6 March, without a response from the complainant’s solicitors, J paid $29,500 into the trust account of the complainants’ lawyers in “full and final settlement”, and sought to have the complaint about failure to comply with the committee’s previous orders dismissed by the committee. The standards committee said it was “concerned and displeased” at J’s attempts in his 4 March email to negotiate his repayment of the deposit funds by making it conditional on withdrawal of the complaint that he had failed to comply with a standards committee order.

The committee determined that J’s apparent failure to comply with its 18 April 2012 order was “high end unsatisfactory conduct”. Although J’s actions may have been affected by the requirements of his insurers, the committee was not convinced that this was an acceptable excuse for his failure to comply with the standards committee’s order. The committee discussed the previous LCRO case of LQ v VN (LCRO 43/2011, 3 May 2012), concerning whether the breach of a standards committee order in that case could be “unsatisfactory conduct”. The LCRO had held in that case that it could not. The committee respectfully declined to apply that ruling, and held that failure to follow an order could be, and in this case clearly was, unsatisfactory conduct. The committee said it “seriously considered” referring the matter to the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, but ultimately decided not to do so. As well as the censure and fine, J was ordered to pay the complainants’ legal fees of $2,954.35, and $1,000 costs to the Law Society. LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

Lawyers Complaints Service

Fined for improper use of legal process A lawyer, D, who issued statutory demands at the same time as proceedings were under way for summary judgment for the same debts, has been fined $1,000 by a lawyers standards committee. His conduct was found to be unsatisfactory. D had acted for the former husband in the context of matrimonial property proceedings concerning relationship property, company records and control of companies. The former wife complained about D’s conduct. Her complaint included allegations that D had: • used legal processes for an improper purpose; • assisted in fraud or crime (particularly in relation to the husband admitting that he had signed the wife’s name on several documents); • conflicting duties to more than one client;

• •

used confidential information; and acted for a client against a former client. As well as acting for the former husband, D had acted for a company, E Ltd. The former husband transferred 499 of the 500 shares in E Ltd to the former wife as part of attempts to reconcile which ultimately failed. D ceased acting for E Ltd at the time of the share transfer. D later issued statutory demands for debts said to be owed by E Ltd to three companies controlled by the former husband. The companies also sued for summary judgment. In his judgment, an Associate Judge of the High Court disapproved of the issue of the statutory demands in the context of the couple disengaging their property interests. He also found the actions in serving statutory demands and issuing summary judgment applications for the same debts

Fined for overcharging Despite a lawyer, E, and two complainants reaching a settlement in a costs revision dispute, a lawyers standards committee nonetheless fined E $2,000 for overcharging. After E acted in a deceased estate, two of the deceased’s family members wrote to the Lawyers Complaints Service to see if the fees charged by the lawyer were justified. The family members said they simply wanted information to confirm what fee would have been fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Upon receipt of the complaint, E said he was hoping to resolve matters before taking extended work leave. The parties negotiated a settlement. E refunded the sisters $15,000, bringing the total fees down to about $39,000. Noting the complaint had technically been withdrawn, the committee considered the matter and nonetheless resolved to continue investigating whether E may have overcharged. The LCRO decisions in 2010, 234/2010 and 241/2010, had considered this point, and had noted that, under s143(3) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, it was open to the standards committee to pursue matters of unsatisfactory conduct or misconduct, despite

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

a settlement between the parties. The committee directed that E and the complainants be sent a letter, inviting them to make submissions. E promptly responded and submitted a copy of the letter of engagement, a printout of timesheets and rate and a list of documents drafted. One of the family members responded saying: “[We] do not wish to make submissions regarding [this] complaint. We reached an agreement with [E] and consider our original complaint as finalised and wish to conclude this matter”. The committee said it was satisfied that the committee itself could make a proper and just decision without a cost assessor. It formed the view that the fees charged were not fair and reasonable based upon the work actually done, even taking into account the fact that E had paid a refund of $15,000 (more than 25% of the original fee). The committee took into account an admission in E’s correspondence to the committee when he said he had a concern that some parts of the complaint may be valid. The committee determined there had been unsatisfactory conduct on E’s part. As well as the fine, E was ordered to pay the Law Society $1,000 costs.

to be duplication and an abuse of process. D submitted that the court was well able to deal with the issues and there was no need for the Law Society to determine the issues in the context of a disciplinary complaint. The committee disagreed, and, noting the express disapproval of the Associate Judge, found D’s conduct to be unsatisfactory. The committee, however, did not uphold any of the other allegations. The committee did not consider that D had assisted in fraud or crime on the evidence made available. It also considered there was no clear evidence of conflict that would have prevented D acting for the former husband. Nor was there any identification of explicit confidential information that would have prevented D from acting. As well as the fine, D was ordered to pay the Law Society $1,000 costs.

Coming Up... LAWASIA Conference The 26th LAWASIA Conference will be held in Singapore from 27 to 30 October. See http://lawasia.asn.au.

South Pacific lawyers The inaugural South Pacific Lawyers’ Conference will be held in Port Vila, Vanuatu on 14 and 15 November. The conference is hosted by the South Pacific Lawyers’ Association and the Vanuatu Law Society, with support from the Law Council of Australia and the University of the South Pacific. See www.southpacificlawyers.org.

Law, medicine and science The 11th Indo Pacific Association of Law, Medicine and Science Congress will be held in Kuala Lumpur from 7 to 10 October. This conference will analyse the latest developments in the related fields of forensic science, forensic medicine and pertinent issues related to both medicine and law. See www.inpalms.org.

R EGISTRY A D M I SS I O N

under Part 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 Ahu Tai Nathan Armstrong Kirsty Marie Baillie Rachael Elizabeth Bajpai Kajal Bartle Oliver James Bazalo Lisa Marie Beashel Rory Michael Beker Jodie Louise Belthazar Jane Berova Nadya Hristova Bhowmick Neel Blackbeard Kate Blair Stephen John Bonham Felicity Samantha Boucher Lauren Hayley Bowles Ashlee Grace Boyce Caitlin Deborah Brazier Louise Mary Bridgeman Caleb Peter Bridger Wesley Michael Broad Brierly Emma Broadbent Daniel Paul Broadhurst Anna Lee Cameron Lisa Susan Chandra Narita Chandra Ravind Chapman John Henry Chen Huiling Chetty Lyle Michael Chivers (Nee Quinn) Katheryn Louise Clement Richard Gray Coats Morgan Malia Collier Simon Matthew Cooke Janelle Nicole Cudby Cheyne Elyse Aroha Dalgleish Nicola Claire Davids Lee-Ann Olivia De Pont Olivia Margaret

De Silva Rushika Handunnethi Dennison Natasha Dodd Matthew Joseph Kennedy Dookia Laila Moonee Drake Hamish William Edward Dunne Kristina Maree Duvashi (Dasari, Surekha) Surekha Narsing Rao Egoz Netta English Luke William Scanlon Evans Marie Lorraine Fatu Toleafoa Harry Ferguson Ian Michael Fowler Joshua Emmanuel Franklin Ella Jane Frans Christopher Peter Daniel Georgiou Robert Gibbs Emma Marion Go John Kenneth Aguirre Griffin Rosemary Griffiths Paul Anthony Guo Jin Hallagan Helena Frances Kate Hamid Noor Ayman Hardy Max Peter Harris James Henry Harrison Mark Roger Haverkamp Casey Anna Jan Hawk David Richard Hawkins-Belliss Shannon Linda Hayes Rachael Ann (Rachel) Henderson Sarah Elizabeth Hinton Alysha Margaret Hogg Tessa Kate Hollister-Jones Katie Ruth Howes Jennifer Anne Hu Bingqing (Tracey) Hutchinson James Thomas Jamieson Jemima Thom

Jang Eunhye (Elyse) Jeong Diana Da Woon Kennedy Nicholas Peter Smith Kilbride Brett Peter Kim Sohyun Kim Yeji King Rebecca Jayne Klaassen Olivia Michelle Kneebone Andrew Seton Charles Kokay Nicholas Stephen Allen Krsteva Simona Krzanich Rafael Steve Lang Anna Katarzyna Lee Kye Hoan (Jocellin) Lee Paul Wansang (Previous Name Lee Wan Sang) Lee Soona Lilley Hrisoula (Previous Name Moskovis Hrisoula Lim-Pollard Ming Yee Lingham Shivani Priya Lopes De Almeida Guedes Diefenbach Virginia Lynch-Watson Katherine Tessa Malin Lynn Rose (Previous Name Barker Lynn Rose) Marshall Alice Claire Matheson Martin Geoffrey Paul Martin Samuel Hamish Glenn Mccutcheon Sam Thomas Mckevitt Kathryn Emma Mcsweeney Ruth Elizabeth Mearns Courtney Alice Meredith Steffany Lisha Merkin Sophie Rose Mills Stuart John Minnema Matthew Scott Moanaroa Sheree Marie Moon Samantha Sookyoung Moore Elyse Lynette Moore Emma Elizabeth Moselen Troy William Mountier James Francis Mulitalo Tafaogalupe Nam Yoon Tae

The following people have applied to the New Zealand Law Society for certificates or approvals

Nicholson Benjamin O’donnell Greer Teresa O’brien Celene O’brien Stephen Richard O’halloran Karlene Tara Olds Celia Frances O’shea Karen Mary Owoeye Olasupo Ayodeji Ozturk Oktay Pandey Anita Rai Pannett Jaime Elizabeth Park Chan-Young Pene Jesse Manuao Pennington Ryan David Petero Savannah Dorothy Elizabeth Atai Piho Charlie Daniel Pile Robert Daniel Pitas Cristina Polak Krzysztof Marek Priestley Andrew Robert Rakena Mylene Michelle Davis Ramanathan Vijayadharshini Randal Waldo Manu Chesney Redvers-Hill Alec James Han Sing Richards Benjamin Joseph Riley Jonathan Andrew Robotham Shelley Mary Roche Christopher John Saker-Norrish Paul Timothy Sanson Courtney Alix Semmens Kirstin Georgina Sen Storme Kelsey Sheely Kade Patrick Shendi Aieyah Sheppard Edwin Jonathan Simmonds Connor James Sinclair Alexandra Joan Skadiang Annabelle Smith Antonia Leiske Rose Smith Christopher James Soriano Max Henrique Stanton Jamie Luca Stewart Jessica Emma

Stirling Amanda Charlotte Strafford Jesse Thomas Simmons Sun Zak Swain Emma Siobhan Tagelagi Shahn Edward Pulevihi Tainui-Maclure Roberta Parekawhia Tapper Patrick Campbell Purcell Taylor Andrew Robin William Taylor Joanne Catherine Taylor Julia Frances Teppett Kate Mary Lethbridge Thein Phillip Pyi Sone Thomas Elizabeth Mary Thompson Nicole Mary Tinkler Emma-Jane Roslyn Togia Liam Reeves Toh Hui-Ming (Rebekah) Tolley Charlotte Elizabeth Tupaea Joseph (Previous Name Tupaea Che Hetakia Te Kani) Tylee Alice Elizabeth Jane Urdu Sidra Akram Verry Katherine Stacia Ward Mallory Kate Watson Sophie Margaret Watt Christina Ashleigh Rosa Weber Matthew Aaron Wells Richard John Whaley Anna Rose Wickliffe Kathleenmere Wigzell James Alexander John Williams David Patrick Win Thuzar Aye Wise Asilika Agnes Wiseman David Martin Alexander Wong Kristen Jaimee Woods Seamus William Pearson Worsley Anna Wylie Olivia Jane Yaqub Aaron Eeman Haizal Yu Susan Shuangying Zhao Yuanfang Zyp-Vanderlaan Nina

A P P R OVA L TO PRACT IS E ON OWN ACCOU NT under s 30 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

Andersen Catherine Mary (Cate) Cantrell Richard James Seaward Crosby Donelle Kay Gush Frances Mary Lund

Khan Serish Gazalla Laird Gervais Raymond Longdill Anna Robin Loughnan Nigel Anthony James

Morshead Roslyn Ann O’connor Bernadette Marie Patena Kane Michael Robertson Rosemary Jane Tennent

Shaw Matthew Patrick Vogel Frederik Wilhelm Constant Walker Natalie Emma

Wang Yue Xu Ying

The Registry is now advertising names of candidates for certificates of character, practising certificates and approvals to practise on own account on the NZLS website at www.lawsociety.org.nz/home/for_lawyers/registry/applications_for_approval/ Comments concerning the suitability of any of the above-named applicants for the certificate or approval being sought should be made in writing to me by 3 October 2013. Any submissions should be given on the understanding that they may be disclosed to the candidate.

LI SA AT T R I L L , R EGIST RY M A N AGER lisa.attrill@lawsociety.org.nz 04 463 2916 0800 22 30 30, 04 463 2989

WI LL S

JAMES RICHARD GOLDWORTHY

R E N ATA G AG E

DAV I D H A K A R A I A TA I A ROA

Would any lawyer holding a will for the abovenamed, late of 61 Rodney Street, Howick, Auckland, retired, who died on 6 September 2013 aged 75 years, please contact Siobhan O’Sullivan, Kemps Weir Lawyers:

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, aka Stephen Renata Gage, late of 3 Porritt Street, Paeroa, born in Otahuhu, Auckland on 9 June 1967, who died on 21 August 2013 at Thames Hospital, please contact Genna Barden, Clark & Gay, Solicitors:

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 11 Kaitangata Crescent, Kelson, Lower Hutt, Bus Driver, born on 5 February 1955, who died on 9 August 2013, please contact Ashika Bali, Gibson Sheat Lawyers:

Siobhan@kempsweir.co.nz Ph 09 525 4593, | Fax 09 525 2811 | DX EP72013 PO Box 62566, Auckland 1546

contact@clarkandgay.co.nz Ph 07 863 7250, | Fax 07 863 8306 | DX HA43502 PO Box 5, Waihi 3641

ashika.bali@gibsonsheat.com Ph 04 916 6450, | Fax 04 569 4874 | DX RP42008 Private Bag 31905, Lower Hutt 5040

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

WI LL S

dav I d w I l l I a m s ow ry Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 453 Littles Road, Dalefield, Queenstown, Bee Keeper, who died on 22 August 2013, please contact Dale Lloyd, Dale Lloyd Law: dale@dllaw.co.nz Ph 03 409 2104, | Fax 03 409 2103 PO Box 2117, Queenstown 9349

JEFFREY ERIC PELETI Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Auckland, Social Worker, who died on 18 November 2012, please contact To’o To’oala, Teei & Associates: ttooala@teeilaw.com Ph 09 837 3207, | Fax 09 837 3259 | DX DP92504 PO Box 21247, Henderson, Auckland 0650

ERIC KEITH MILLER Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 7 Ted Gilberd Place, Johnsonville, Wellington, Builder, born on 27 June 1948, who died on 12 June 2013, please contact Graeme Withers, Graeme Withers Law: info@witherslaw.co.nz Ph 04 478 4888, | Fax 04 478 4886 PO Box 83076, Johnsonville, Wellington 6440

M A R I O N B R AT TO N

LEG A L S ERV I CES

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Unit 37-46, Beresford Street, Parkwood Estate Retirement, Pukekohe, retired, born on 31 December 1927, who died on 8 March 2013 at Pukekohe, please contact Gerard Rush, Public Trust:

ENGLISH LAW AGENCY SERVICES

Gerard.Rush@publictrust.co.nz Ph 03 977 3906, | Fax 06 965 6200 36 Clarence St South, Addington, Christchurch

SOLICITORS Established 1825

PAT R I C I A J OA N H OW E L L Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Christchurch, widow, born on 30 November 1923, who died on 15 July 2013, please contact Katy Mayhew, Barker & Associates: katy.mayhew@barkerassociates.co.nz Ph 03 349 4574, | Fax 03 349 4564 PO Box 16490, Christchurch 8441

Fearon & Co specialise in acting for non-residents in the fields of Probate, Property and Litigation. In particular:• Obtaining Grants of Representation for Estates in England and Wales, Channel Islands, Isle of Man and elsewhere and re-sealing Australian and New Zealand Grants of Representation • Administering English Estates • Buying and selling homes and business premises • Recovering compensation for accident victims • Litigation including Debt Recovery and Matrimonial Our offices are within easy reach of the London Airports and Central London Stations

SHI ZHOU Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Auckland, Computer System Manager, who died on 9 February 2013 at Ontario, Canada, please contact Royal Reed, Prestige Lawyers: royal@prestigelawyers.co.nz Ph 09 303 4400, | Fax 09 303 4411 PO Box 305379, Triton Plaza, North Shore City 0757

VISIT OUR WEBSITE www.fearonlaw.com Westminster House, 6 Faraday Road, Guildford, Surrey GU1 1EA, United Kingdom Tel: 00 44 (0)1483 540840 Fax: 00 44 (0)1483 540844 General Email: enquiries@fearonlaw.com

LITIGATION

Martin Williams 00 44 (0)1483 540843

mw@fearonlaw.com

PROPERTY John Phillips

00 44 (0)1483 540841

ajp@fearonlaw.com

PROBATE

Francesca Nash 00 44 (0)1483 540842

fn@fearonlaw.com

Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales

S40 PUBLIC WORK S AC T 1 9 81

TO LE AS E

R E (INA) WALKER AND JOAN WESTWARD BOYDEN

SAMUEL HAUORA ALSO KNOWN AS HAUORA PIKIRAPU

Could anyone who has any information on either of the above named, who are possibly residing in Australia, please contact Asti Miln.

Sam was living in the Ohangai area. If anybody has any information relating to the above individual or any practitioner is holding a will for the above-named, who died in 1935, please contact Asti Miln.

Email:asti.miln@darroch.co.nz DDI: 03 363 5066 Information is sought for the purposes of Section 40, Public Works Act 1981. +64 (0)3 379 9787 Darroch Limited MREINZ REAA 2008

Email: asti.miln@darroch.co.nz DDI: 03 363 5066 Information is sought for the purposes of Section 40, Public Works Act 1981.

Minimum 1 year lease. $9,620.00 $10,400.00 plus GST pa.

+64 (0)3 379 9787 Darroch Limited MREINZ REAA 2008

For further details phone Robin on 07 8397081

LY N E T T E J O Y C E A L I S O N Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 47 Makoura Road, Apiti, retired, born on 1 June 1942, who died in August 2013, please contact Reuben Rigby: apitikid@xtra.co.nz | Ph 06 328 4568 | 47 Makoura Road, RD 1, Apiti 4771

B E R N A R D S Y LW E S T E R K U C Z E R A Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Kerikeri, who died on 20 May 2011, please contact Graeme McLelland, McLeods Lawyers: glm@mcleods.co.nz | Ph 09 407 0170 | Fax 09 407 7089 PO Box 1002, Kerikeri 0245

MALCOLM JOHN PUGH Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, known as John, late of 499 Downs Road, RD 6, Rangiora, who died on 13 April 2013, please contact Katherine Wilmott, Ashley Law Ltd: katherine@ashleylaw.co.nz | Ph 03 310 6464 | PO Box 627, Rangiora 7440

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

Hamilton Central Two single offices in a suite of serviced offices in the middle of the Hamilton CBD available for lease. Would suit a barrister sole. Furnished or unfurnished.

WI LL S

Barrister’s Room

F O R SA LE

Conveyancing Practice For Sale · Back on market – purchaser finance fallen over. · Sole Practitioner retiring due to other Business Interests. · Strong cash flow with good profit. Marketing programs that attract ongong clients from overseas and NZ wide. · Locality not an issue. Excellent opportunity to expand your business with wills, trusts and estate planning. · Good client data base and repeat client work. · Add $150K to your bottom line. Email expressions of interest to: enquiriesbusiness4sale@gmail.com

SI TUATIONS VAC ANT

Corporate Commercial Associate 5-8 years PQE Wellington Not for the faint hearted, this driven team requires a talented senior lawyer with initiative and a real willingness to roll up their sleeves and advance their career.

INTERMEDIATE/SENIOR SOLICITOR 6+ PQE

Due to natural attrition and the demand to service a variety of innovative national and global brands, a mix of local government and private sector businesses, this role requires real commercial grunt and expertise across the areas of corporate law to include acquisitions, contractual work and structuring, property and construction and finance.

Berry & Co is a progressive medium sized firm with an expanding national and international client base. We have offices in Queenstown, Oamaru and Auckland and are currently looking for an intermediate to senior solicitor to become part of our legal team in our Queenstown office.

The opportunity will suit a senior lawyer that is an astute commercial operator who can think for themselves, is self-managing and looking to advance their career. They will take ownership for mentoring and developing junior lawyers.

The successful applicant will have 6+ years PQE. They will be practical and well organised with experience in any or all of the following areas:

While there is plenty of work to do, the partners are keen to bring someone into the team with the momentum to develop their own brand and practice over time. They might also have an interest in specialising in a particular area of law.

• • • •

This national firm prides itself on its commitment to support crossselling other areas of the business and providing their lawyers with an opportunity to gain exposure to the business and commercial world. Please contact Jennifer Little at Jennifer@hrshop.co.nz for a confidential discussion. 0508 HR SHOP / Level 1 - 182 Vivian Street Po Box 7031, Wellington South

Employment Civil Litigation Commercial and Property Trusts

Queenstown is an exciting and progressive community offering unique work and lifestyle opportunities. If you enjoy a challenging environment and you are looking to advance your career please forward your CV to: The Office Manager Berry & Co PO Box 179 Queenstown 9348 Email: sburns@berryco.co.nz

LITIGATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION LAWYER 

Business, Property and Insolvency Disputes



4-7 years experience



Shortland Street offices

We are a progressive full service law firm with a long and proud history and a strong and loyal client base. Our team is growing. We have a fantastic opportunity for a Litigation and Dispute Resolution lawyer. If you like solving problems and enjoy working in a collaborative team environment, then we would love to hear from you. You:  Experience in Commercial litigation and mediation  Strong research, drafting and written communication skills  A team player who has a genuine interest in law and enjoys helping people This is an excellent role for someone with strong technical skills who enjoys an interesting range of work with the support of our specialist business law and property teams. We would consider part time. We have a great social culture that is fun and genuinely family friendly.

For more information or to apply, please contact Janet Lee Martin jleemartin@jacksonrussell.co.nz jleemartin@jacksonrussell.co.nz; or phone 09 300 6921. www.jacksonrussell.co.nz Direct applications are requested. will be treated in confidence.

All applications

Members of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal Auckland The Minister of Justice is seeking expressions of interest from suitably qualified persons for appointment as full-time or part-time members of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal based in Auckland. To become a member of the Tribunal you must have formal adjudication/arbitration/decisionmaking experience. You may also have relevant experience and knowledge of the building industry. A legal background is desirable although possession of a current practising certificate is not essential. Importantly candidates will possess the critical thinking and plain-English writing skills required to reach and write-up robust and fair adjudication decisions. An application pack for the position may be obtained from the Ministry of Justice website www.justice.govt.nz Applications close on Friday 18 October 2013.

LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013 ·

SI TUATIONS VAC ANT

TO LE AS E

a momentum group company

Your Legal and Property talent search experts Our specialty is in the sourcing and placement of legal and property professionals. Presenting your Venator team: Jane Wellik – LLB Legal – Wellington & South Island Phone 04 978 1850 Meryn Hemmingsen – LLB/BSocSci Legal - Auckland Phone 09 920 6678 Amber Trebitsch – BA/LLB Legal – Auckland Phone 09 920 6678 Tim Rosenberg – BSC (Hons.)/MRICS Property – National Phone 09 920 6678

Auckland’s Best Location – Res Judicata

By every measure, the Vero Centre Merging exceptional talent with exceptional environments Your way forward Talk to us now

is Auckland’s preeminent legal address. Now, with a range of cost-effective legal offices and barristers chambers available for lease, including spaces with existing high quality fit-outs, Vero can be

Looking for a new challenge?

confidently judged New Zealand’s best.

Ready to pass on your passion for the law? The Institute of Professional Legal Studies invites applications from lawyers ready to teach and mentor the lawyers of tomorrow. You will be outgoing, organised, efficient and enjoy: ■ The challenge of moulding law graduates into great lawyers ■ Working as part of a highly motivated team You must have: ■ The capacity to devote at least one week at a time teaching in an IPLS learning centre ■ Seven years’ practical legal experience (recent litigation experience an advantage) ■ The ability to adapt to new situations ■ A genuine desire to pass on your knowledge ■ A sense of humour! If this sounds like you, email your resume and covering letter to careers@ipls.org.nz

· LawTalk 828 · 27 September 2013

Call us today to view

the exciting leasing options available for prestigious whole floors and top quality legal suites. Rob Bird

m. +64 (21) 358-188

e. rob.bird@colliers.com

Paul Dyson

m. +64 (21) 423-722

e. paul.dyson@colliers.com