Lawtalk 844 by New Zealand Law Society

LawTalk

TRAILBLAZERS

HELP IS AT HAND To provide a service for lawyers seeking independent help with an issue in their life, the New Zealand Law Society has signed an agreement with Lifeline Aotearoa. Lifeline offers a discounted rate to New Zealand Law Society members and their families. Lifelineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s team of qualified professional counsellors is experienced in working with clients across a broad range of issues. They can help with day to day issues such as stress, anxiety, burnout, depression, relationship issues, grief, trauma and addiction. Phone lifeline Aotearoa: (09) 909 8750 email: face2face@lifeline.org.nz

PRACTISING WELL Supporting lawyers since 2009.

my.lawsociety.org.nz/practising-well

Contents. Just to know that you have done everything you can within your resources and skills to combat that array of state resources is a very satisfying feeling. – Nigel Hampton QC

Regulars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Our Profession, Our People Effective practice

Young law graduates: what they earn and employment rates.

Practising Well

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

How do we deal with conflict in a way which is mature and doesn’t end up like a playground argument with insults being hurled?

Technology

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

Why should you care about Web 3.0?

Law reform report

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

Lawyers’ duty to co-operate

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

Lawyers have a duty to co-operate with the complaints, investigative and disciplinary processes established under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.

The Bookshelf

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

Courtroom practice

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

Paperless jury trial – perhaps not yet.

Law foundation

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

Law Foundation support for mooting has again helped New Zealand teams achieve excellent results at the world’s leading competitions.

Lighter side of lawyering

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

Best least annoying barrister

26 27 28

32 34 35 36

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

In-house lawyers need to be reliable, be enablers for their organisation, and their best tool will be their ability to influence, delegates to the 27th annual CLANZ Conference learned. Held in Dunedin, the theme of the conference was Back to School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Lawyers Complaints Service Classified Advertising

TRAILBLAZERS

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

NZLS CLE upcoming programmes In-house

Feature Trailblazers LawTalk profiles five lawyers, each of whom has – in their own way – been a trailblazer.

Page 4

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

From the Law Society Chris Moore This week is National Volunteer Week, which began on 15 June and runs to 21 June. I want to say a very warm “thank you” on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society to the thousands of lawyers who make a substantial contribution to the New Zealand community. Lawyers provide an enormous amount of voluntary work, both through the Law Society and directly in the community. The vast majority of New Zealand’s 12,000-plus lawyers provide their time and expertise free of charge, whether it is on a school board, a charity, another community organisation or through the Law Society. Because of their inherent knowledge, experience and skills, lawyers are in great demand for positions on boards and community organisations. For their part, the majority of lawyers are imbued with a sense of obligation to give back to the community. That gives the pro bono work that lawyers undertake a significantly higher altruistic motivation than some initiatives which, while they do benefit the community, have as their principal aim improving the bottom line. Just how valuable a contribution lawyers make to the community was highlighted in a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report published in July 2012. This looked at just one aspect of lawyers’ multi-million dollar contribution to the community – the direct pro bono work undertaken through Community Law Centres. The total value of that contribution was $1,796,655. That figure is just a small percentage of the dollar value lawyers are providing annually up and down the length of the country.

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

The voluntary contribution by hundreds of lawyers is a crucial part of the Law Society’s work. In fact, you could say that the Law Society runs on the combined voluntary intellectual contributions of lawyers. Without these contributions, practising fees would be significantly higher. I mention three particular areas where hundreds of lawyers volunteer their services. These are: • supporting the regulation of the legal profession; • working on and providing material for the submissions comments and input into the volumes of submissions made in the course the Law Society’s activities in law reform and the administration of justice; and • serving and contributing to the work of Law Society councils, sections and committees. In addition to the non-lawyer members, the lawyers standards committees alone would have well over 150 lawyer members. That does not take into account the many more lawyers who are cost assessors or members of a practice approval committee. Many thousands of hours a month are spent on law reform and administration of justice initiatives by those serving on Law Society’s Law Reform and specialist committees, sections and branches. This list does not cover those many lawyers who are willing to provide their services by offering a hand to others, providing counsel through the Friends Panels or that crucial collegiality and support that marks out a true profession. These lawyers quietly go about volunteering their significant contributions never seeking any accolades for themselves. As a profession, we can be proud of those voluntary contributions and achievements of our colleagues. For me personally, I am extremely grateful to you all for this terrific service. Chris Moore New Zealand Law Society President

News Points LawTalk is published by the New Zealand Law Society for the New Zealand legal profession. It is published fortnightly and has been published since 1974. LawTalk is sent to every lawyer in New Zealand who holds a current practising certificate. Lawyer numbers change over the year, but range from 11,700 upwards. LawTalk is also sent to further recipients who include members of the judiciary, Law Society associate members, legal

executives, Members of Parliament, media, academics and others involved in the legal services industry. Total circulation ranges between 12,400 and 12,800 copies. An online version of LawTalk is available on the New Zealand Law Society’s website at www.lawsociety.org.nz. This contains most of the articles included in each issue and a full pdf file of each hardcopy issue may also be downloaded.

E N V I R O N M E N TA L S TAT E M E N T LawTalk is printed on Sumo Matte. This is an environmentally responsible paper, produced using Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF), FSC© certified, Mixed Source pulp from Responsible Sources, and manufactured under the strict ISO14001 Environmental Management System. The FSC certification means that the

international Forest Stewardship Council has certified that the paper used to produce LawTalk meets its requirements at all stages along the production chain. The shrink wrap used for delivery of LawTalk is 25 micron biodegradable film manufactured in New Zealand. This degrades naturally.

If you wish to discard LawTalk please recycle it. The wrapping may be composted.

Established in 1869, the New Zealand Law Society regulates the practice of law in New Zealand and represents the interests of lawyers who choose to be members. The powers and functions of the Law Society are set out in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. As well as upholding the fundamental obligations imposed on lawyers who provide regulated services, the Law Society is required to assist and promote the reform of the law, for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand. 26 Waring Taylor St, Wellington 6011, New Zealand 04 472 7837 PO Box 5041, Wellington 6145, New Zealand or DX SP20202 President – Chris Moore Board – Allister Davis (South Island), John Unsworth (North Island), Kathryn Beck (Auckland), Mark Wilton (Wellington) Executive Director – Christine Grice

EDITOR Frank Neill, 04 463 2982 editor@lawsociety.org.nz WRITERS Elliot Sim, 04 463 2902 elliot.sim@lawsociety.org.nz Rachael Breckon, 04 463 2910 rachael.breckon@lawsociety.org.nz SENIOR DESIGNER Andrew Jacombs, 04 463 2981 andrew.jacombs@lawsociety.org.nz DESIGNER Daz Yang, 04 463 7837 daz.yang@lawsociety.org.nz ADVERTISING Christine Wilson, 04 463 2905 advertising@lawsociety.org.nz CO M M U N I C AT I O N S M A N AG E R Geoff Adlam, 04 463 2980 geoff.adlam@lawsociety.org.nz PRINTING Lithoprint, Wellington DISTRIBUTION Western Mailing, Lower Hutt ISSN 0114-989X (Print) ISSN 2382-0330 (Online)

Unless it is clearly indicated, the views expressed in LawTalk are not to be taken as those of, or endorsed by, the New Zealand Law Society. No responsibility whatsoever is accepted by the New Zealand Law Society for any opinion, information, or advertisement contained in LawTalk.

Civil proceedings changing Changes are being made to civil proceedings from 1 July, due to the changes to the District Court Rules 2014. The new rules change how a civil proceeding is started, defended and how they are managed. “The new rules will make the civil claims process easier and quicker to get through,” says Tony Fisher, General Manager, District Courts. More about the changes and the new process is on the Ministry of Justice website at www.justice.govt.nz/courts/civil.

Suicide reporting The Government has agreed to the recommendations in the Law Commission’s recent report on suicide reporting. Courts Minister Chester Borrows says he plans to introduce a Coroners Amendment Bill “in the coming months”, which will implement changes identified in the Government’s recent review of the Coroners Act 2006. The Law Commission’s report, released in April, recommended a number of changes to clarify and improve the law governing suicide reporting. Its proposals included revised reporting restrictions focused on the details most likely to cause harm. For example, the proposed changes would restrict reporting the method of a suicide, as well as where it occurred if the location suggested the method – unless the Chief Coroner granted an exemption. A death could be described as “suspected suicide” if the facts support that description.

Sir Muir Chilwell dies Former High Court Judge Sir Muir Chilwell has died in Auckland aged 90. Sir Muir was appointed to the Supreme Court (now High Court) in 1973. Appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1965 he was noted for his commercial practice. He was also a Queen’s Counsel in Victoria, Australia. He was a Council member of the Auckland District Law Society from 1960 to 1967 and was President from 1967 to 1968. He retired from the High Court in 1991, having been knighted in 1989. LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

TRAILBL by Frank Neill

by Frank Neill

Nigel Hampton QC is more than one of New Zealand’s leading barristers. As well as being a trial lawyer, he has significant judicial and quasi-judicial experience, including serving as Chief Justice of the Kingdom of Tonga.

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

Mr Hampton’s promise was evident while still at Canterbury University, most notably when he won the 1964 Canterbury District Law Society Gold Medal for top graduate of his year. Next year he will celebrate 50 years since his

LAZERS admission on 11 February 1965. In the 49-plus years following admission, he has practised common law exclusively. In the earlier years of his practice, he had quite extensive civil, family and criminal experience. In more recent years, he has specialised in criminal work. Selecting highlights of his career is a “difficult proposition”, he says. “I would opt for some of the hardest of the criminal trials, where in defending you are starting from way behind. You’ve got a formidable Crown case in front of you. You’ve got a formidable opponent in the Crown prosecutor and all of the state’s resources against you. “It is really person alone stuff. “To come out of those sorts of trials with a feeling of a job well done, enhanced by an acquittal if you obtain one, is always a highlight. “Just to know that you have done everything you can within your resources and skills to combat that array of state resources is a very satisfying feeling. “That, I know, is reducing it to a very personal level, but it is that personal level which is the instigator of your getting up and doing it again. It is the level of satisfaction that you get which drives you on, notwithstanding your own weariness.” That weariness, particularly when one is doing back-to-back trials, brings a danger with it – the danger that you stretch yourself too far. “It’s not just common to me, depleting your physical and psychological resources.” Two cases which helped make Mr Hampton’s name as a criminal barrister were a West Coast murder trial and a case against a Labour MP. In the first case, Ronald David Bailey was charged with murdering his wife by drowning her in the Grey River. About a year after her death, her body was exhumed, and the Crown alleged that Bailey had held her under the water, rather than that she had been swept away. “The case was of such interest and perceived

significance that the Solicitor-General, Richard Savage QC, came down to prosecute in Greymouth,” Mr Hampton says. “The stakes were high and interest was quite intense, not just on the Coast, but around the country. “Against the odds, Bailey was acquitted. That plays a very significant part in my memory.” Island Bay’s Labour MP Gerald O’Brien was charged in 1976 with indecencies on young males. “After what can only be described as something of a tumult in Christchurch one evening, O’Brien was found quite badly injured. “When Police found the alleged perpetrators of the assault, they complained against O’Brien and said that the assaults were as a result of what he had done to them.” Following that, O’Brien was charged with molesting two boys after allegedly asking them back to his motel room for a drink. “That was going to go to a jury trial. I acted for O’Brien. We had a reasonably long depositions hearing where the complainants were subject to fairly rigorous cross-examination, at the end of which I was able to persuade the Magistrate that there was no case to answer. “That case resulted at the time in extraordinary publicity. “It was probably these two cases – the Bailey case and the O’Brien case – that created for me the career which I’ve subsequently had at the bar. From there, it becomes difficult to highlight one case as opposed to another.” One of his career highpoints, however, has been his involvement in the International Criminal Court (ICC). From 2007 to 2011, Mr Hampton was the first Disciplinary Commissioner of Counsel before the ICC. “I found that a very refreshing thing to do at that stage of my career,” he said. “It is also refreshing to realise that the skills you have learned and the experiences you have

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

had, particularly in disciplinary proceedings in New Zealand, hold good on the world stage. “It was an extraordinarily interesting and novel experience to have input into the International Criminal Court setting up its disciplinary/regulatory system. “To some extent we had something of a carte blanche in terms of drafting procedural rules and regulations for these disciplinary processes.” Mr Hampton’s disciplinary experience goes back to his involvement in Canterbury under the Law Practitioners Act 1982, where he acted both for and against practitioners charged with disciplinary offences. For a short time, starting in 1987, he was a member of the Canterbury District Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. In 1989, he became a member of the New Zealand Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal, taking a break for two years while he was Chief Justice of the Kingdom of Tonga. He then chaired the tribunal from 2002 until 2005, remaining on as a member until the implementation of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. “It was that involvement in the New Zealand legal disciplinary context that led, to my surprise, to be appointed to the ICC job. “I understand there were two primary factors in my favour [in securing the ICC role], first my own experience in disciplinary processes and secondly the repute that New Zealand has in international fora as being an independent-minded state with a good reputation internationally for being relatively corruption free and with a judicial system to be respected, if not admired. “I think part of that reputation seems to have flowed from New Zealand adopting its anti-nuclear stance, which seems to mark a turning point, at least in overseas minds, with New Zealand being seen as an independent state prepared, if necessary, to take a stand against bigger powers.” Mr Hampton continues his involvement in disciplinary decision-making. He is co-chair with Paul Collins of the Law Society’s National Standards Committee. One of the more recent highlights of his career was acting for the EPMU (the NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing & Manufacturing Union), the union representing miners, in the Pike River Royal Commission of Inquiry. “It had an interesting circularity in my career, because back in the late 60s when the Strongman Mine blew up and killed 19

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

miners, an inquiry was held into that disaster.” The firm Mr Hampton worked for then, R A Young Hunter & Co, acted for the Deputies’ and Underviewers’ Union. “Having had some knowledge as to that inquiry, it was interesting to come to Pike and find many of the same issues as Strongman. “Over time, the lessons learned in Strongman were forgotten and the reforming zeal of the early 90s led to and allowed the regulatory laxity which became only too apparent when we got to the Pike disaster.” An interesting sidelight of that was that Mr Hampton was approached by the then EPMU secretary, now MP Andrew Little. Mr Little asked Mr Hampton to act for the union, even though he had not acted for unions before as such. “He [Mr Little] then said: ‘do you remember me?’ I said ‘no’. He said about 15 years before he had attended a litigation skills course where I’d been on the faculty. He said he had been impressed with my input on the course, and that was the reason for seeking me out.” As well as his disciplinary involvement, another significant area where Mr Hampton has served has been as a long-standing member of the NZLS CLE Litigation Skills Course. He was approached to join the faculty of the first course, held in 1985. At first he said “no”, as he thought “you should throw everyone in the deep end and let them sink or swim”, as that was the way he had learnt. However, “against my better judgement I was persuaded”. Ever since, he has played a part – either as a faculty member or course director – apart from the two years he was in Tonga, or otherwise engaged elsewhere. “It is an extraordinarily good course and I have changed my mind about it completely,” he says. “You can teach these skills. It is not a case of sink or swim. Litigation skills can be taught and practised and practised and practised until they come right. So I’m now a very fervent believer.” Being Chief Justice of the Kingdom of Tonga (from 1995 to 1997) “had its own fascinations”, Mr Hampton says. “In fact I’m going up there in two weeks’ time, not judicially related, but to talk about democracy. Tonga is a constitutional monarchy just emerging in the last four years from being an absolute monarchy, so democracy is very relevant.”

Although never colonised by Britain, Tonga nevertheless had a very close relationship with Britain from the early 19th century and had looked to Britain to supply its Supreme Court judges for over 100 years. In the mid-1990s, Tonga came looking for a Chief Justice from outside the United Kingdom, and Mr Hampton went there in 1995 as the first Australasian in the role. For Mr Hampton, it came at a very good time, a time when he was starting to “wear pretty thin” with the stresses and strains of criminal practice. Although it had its stresses too, they were different and he was not “working under the

“It also gave me a different perspective on judicial work and a greater respect for judges and what they have to do.” extreme pressures and stresses of criminal practice”. Mr Hampton found it “fully refreshing – living in a different culture and experiencing different ways. “It was good for me. It also gave me a different perspective on judicial work and a greater respect for judges and what they have to do.” About 40% of the cases were criminal and about 40% were civil. In addition, there was a “unique category” of land cases. “Land holding tenure is very different in Tonga. All land is owned by the monarch. Within that, the monarch has divided up the islands into various estates. The estates are governed by nobles … who grant allotments to ordinary people.” Two types of allotments are granted. A “town allotment” of about a quarter acre for a family home and a “tax allotment” of about eight acres on which one can grow crops. There

is no right to inherit land. “Within the land tenure system, there are a whole range of potential disputes that can arise. There is a significant unique Tongan jurisprudence which arises out of the land tenure system.” The “one outstanding case” in his time as Chief Justice came after three people – a commoner MP and two journalists – were imprisoned for contempt of the legislature. “I was presented with a writ of habeas corpus. “I ruled that they had not been properly summoned before the house for the alleged contempt, that they had not been given proper rights of trial, and that therefore their imprisonment was unlawful. “That caused rather a degree of controversy because it was seen to be treading in the realm of parliament’s own rights, prerogatives and privileges, and what right does the judiciary have there?” Mr Hampton’s judgment was based on Tonga’s constitution. “Rights of due process and fair trial were enshrined in the constitution and they applied to parliament as they did to anyone else. If the constitution was not adhered to, then that could be dealt with by the courts. “My judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal, who agreed with my view that the Tongan Parliament was a confined legislature and that it was bound by and had to act within the constitution. “That was quite an extraordinary case in many respects and an experience I won’t forget, and I wouldn’t have had it if I hadn’t gone to Tonga.” This is, in a sense, just a dip into the large pool that is Mr Hampton’s career. Among the many cases he has taken are about 100 homicide trials. He has also served in many other ways than listed in this article, for example as a rugby judicial officer, as well as on many boards and tribunals. His Law Society service has also included being on the Canterbury District Law Society’s Council from 1978-87, as President in 1986 and 1987. From 1987 to 1989 he was the New Zealand Law Society’s South Island Vice-President, on the Law Society’s Council from 1984 to 1989 and on the Executive Committee from 1986 to 1989. Mr Hampton was awarded an OBE for services to the law in 1988.

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

Directing the PDS a ‘fascinating role’ by Frank Neill

Brendan Horsley is the newly appointed Deputy Solicitor-General (Criminal), having started in April 2014. He moved to this role from being the first National Director of the Public Defence Service (PDS). The whole concept of the PDS, its expansion, the timing of its expansion and other changes in legal aid made it an interesting time to be the first National Director, he says. Mr Horsley took up the reins as National Director of the PDS around the time the service was about to expand from the Auckland area, where it had been trialled, to cover the country. When he started with the PDS in August 2011, “we had 50 lawyers working for us then. When I finished in April of this year, we had just gone past 140 lawyers working for us. “In that time, we moved from doing about 5,000 cases a year to round about 15,000 cases a year and we spread from Dunedin up to Auckland. “It was a big jump and a significant change to the legal landscape really. “If you treat it [the PDS] like a law firm, it would be one of the biggest and certainly it would be the biggest collection of criminal

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

lawyers in the country.” After graduating from Victoria University, Mr Horsley started in a general practitioner role with Burnard Bull in Gisborne in 1992. The work involved “everything from conveyancing to criminal/civil litigation, even debt collection. I always tried to avoid family law though.” In 1995 he moved within Gisborne, going to Crown Solicitor Woodward Iles & Co, as they were known then. “I managed to do a lot of trials with them, as well as a little bit of more general work like employment practice.” A “Wellington boy through and through”, Mr Horsley moved back to the capital in 1999 to begin a three-year stint with the Commerce Commission, prosecuting quasi criminal and criminal offences. “That was great, because it was a different sort of law – that mix of commerce and economics and criminal law all sort of overlaid. It was a pretty fascinating time actually.” In 2001 he started with Crown Law as a Crown Counsel in the criminal team, working under the then Solicitor-General Terrence

Arnold, now Justice Arnold. “Particularly with Crown Law, the breadth of that criminal law is pretty extensive. You have everything from extradition to execution of search warrants, and interesting constitutional and bill of rights issues often arise.” When he left Crown Law to become National Director of the PDS he was team leader of the criminal law team. Director of the PDS was a “fascinating role” because it involved setting up and expanding the service both geographically and numerically. “You were setting it up, basically, as a national firm that could take advantage of the economies of scale that it was starting to derive.” Although the role was much more management and strategy than litigation, there was some court-based work. Mr Horsley, for example, made one Court of Appeal appearance, which he won “so I have a 100% success rate as a criminal defence appellate lawyer”. It was his only Court of Appeal appearance as a defender, although he has made many as a prosecutor. “As punishment for winning in the Court of Appeal, I did the retrial, which did not result in a ‘not guilty’.” In his new role in Crown Law, he is largely responsible for signing off on whether to take Crown appeals, whether Crown Law will agree to mutual assistance requests and other constitutional and statutory functions of the Solicitor-General in the criminal law area. “It’s fascinating law,” he says. “The breadth of law and advice and appearances that we get in Crown Law generally is what makes it such an attractive place to work. “I think one of the other significant changes that has occurred since my return to Crown Law has been the setting up of the Public Prosecutions Unit and the bigger focus on the government legal network, with Crown Law providing a focal point or lead on both of these. “And that’s with a view to providing a better service, better training and better opportunities across the government legal network and, from our team’s point of view, particularly when it comes to public prosecutions. “There have been some other interesting changes in terms of funding, in a similar way to legal aid. The Crown hasn’t been immune from financial constraints and there have been significant changes in how the Crown Solicitors are funded as well, and a consequent increase in the administration of the Crown Solicitors network and the oversight of that network.

“That’s very much part of the Deputy Solicitor-General’s role – reviews of Crown Solicitors and ensuring continued delivery of quality Crown prosecution services,” he says. He describes a range of highlights in his career, from almost surreal experiences to his first Supreme Court appearance. One example of a surreal experience came when he was prosecuting in the Ruatoria District Court “which wasn’t actually a District Court. That had burnt down. In fact it was the St John’s Ambulance hall.” Mr Horsley referred to the “almost picnic, fair-like atmosphere that was around when you had court days up there. It was a pretty unique experience having people arriving at court on horseback and hitching horses to posts and waiting for their names to be called.” His first appearance in the Supreme Court

“There are some really good innovations happening in the justice sector at the moment” was a highlight. “I guess it was the level of preparation, research and excitement of appearing in that forum, which was pretty new at the time.” His case was one of the early substantive hearings in New Zealand’s Supreme Court. There have been other highlights, too, particularly through Crown Law. One was involvement with the Pacific Islands Law Officer Network. “That’s a fascinating network of Solicitors-General and AttorneysGeneral from around the Pacific Islands”. Through that network, he heard some of the stories about how they cope with the rule of law. “Many of them had been summarily dismissed from their roles when they gave advice that was not welcomed. Some had been physically attacked. “The commitment that these people showed

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Citizens Advice Bureaux \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// A life of legal ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ advocacy \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ to the rule of law throughout the Pacific is incredible. “I think one of the great things about both New Zealand and Australia, but I think New Zealand in particular, is the support that they show for those Pacific Islands in terms of helping with everything from drafting of legislation, general advice and training. “I think it is such an important role that we play in the Pacific, and I guess that’s one of the things that I’ve been proud to be a part of.” The most significant changes Mr Horsley has seen in his time as a lawyer are those that are happening right at this moment. These include the advent of the PDS, significant changes in the funding of legal aid,

the modernisation of courts projects and the Criminal Procedure Act “which is the single biggest shake-up to criminal procedure since 1956. “I think we are seeing a greater focus on trying to derive some real efficiencies out of the courts, and just do things a little bit better and, I think hopefully, with a customer-centred focus.” An example is the use of audio-visual links, which avoid “hauling people from prisons into holding cells with all the costs and hardship to these defendants” that involves. “There are some really good innovations happening in the justice sector at the moment,” Mr Horsley says.

firm in London. “On the first week I was there they said: ‘oh we forgot to tell you, but we provide a legal advisor for the local Citizens Advice Bureau, and you’re the legal advisor. I knew nothing. Everyone had the most complicated Rent Act problems and I had not read the Act and knew nothing about its complexities. I struggled.” However, that daunting tale of inexperience set Mr Ludbrook on a path which would see him help to found Citizens Advice Bureaux and, then later, Community Law Centres in New Zealand.

by Rachael Breckon

Robert Ludbrook launches into a story (despite admitting it is against his interests to do so). It details how as a young lawyer, fresh off the boat from New Zealand in 1961, he got a job with a suburban law

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

“When I got back to New Zealand in about 1969, there was a movement in Auckland to set up a Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB). I was the only person who knew anything about the British CAB movement. I suggested the first CAB in Ponsonby provide free legal advice sessions like the one that I had worked on in England,” Mr Ludbrook says. After the first Citizens Advice Bureau opened in Ponsonby, the movement grew rapidly to Queen Street, Otara, Glen Innes and Avondale. The free legal advice movement was not without its opposition from lawyers; “some people were very unhappy”. But, fortunately, at the time Mr Ludbrook was a partner with Bruce Slane.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// Community law ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Children \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Anti-racism campaigns \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ “He always managed to smooth things with the Law Society,” Mr Ludbrook says. Mr Ludbrook’s work setting up CABs saw him win the Auckland District Law Society prize for community lawyer of the year and a monetary prize. He was also nominated by the New Zealand Law Society to attend a three-month live-in workshop called The Asian Workshop on Legal Services for the poor in California at Berkeley University. As part of the Workshop, Mr Ludbrook had a three-week placement with a Neighbourhood Law Office in the small town of Marysville in rural California, and a placement with a large Public Defenders Office in Oakland. “It was just amazing,” he says. “The lawyers there were very radical and were treated with great suspicion by the local community and the private law profession.”

The speakers and discussion around how law could to be used as a tool to empower the poor, gave Mr Ludbrook the “intellectual bite” to get more involved in community law in the mid-1970s. This trip fuelled his desire to set up a similar model in New Zealand. So with the help of Bruce Slane and others on the Auckland District Law Society and “after treading water for a couple of years” the Auckland District Law Society agreed to fund the Grey Lynn Neighbourhood Law Office – the first community law centre in New Zealand, which opened in 1978. “We had no money. We got premises free of charge from a friendly lawyer. We got furniture donated by the legal profession,” he says. They made links with the Pacific Island and Māori communities, and employed a Māori community worker Vapi Kupenga and a Māori lawyer John Wilson. Mr Ludbrook later worked in Community Law Centres in London, spending two years at Camden Community Law Centre and later working at the newly established Children’s Legal Centre in Islington.

When Mr Ludbrook was working in a law firm in London he completed a diploma in sociology at London University, which gave him an understanding of racial discrimination and institutional racism. Mr Ludbrook, who grew up in Auckland and went to a private primary school, had not

been aware of racial issues in New Zealand. “Quite frankly, I had subscribed to the beliefs that New Zealand had the best race relations in the world. Yet the whole of my education I only remember one student at my school being Māori.” Returning from the United Kingdom he describes himself as “fired up with this idealism to make changes to law and society. One area was anti-racism and another was adoption reform (with which I am very much still involved).” So in the early 1970s he joined a group called ACORD, the Auckland Committee on Racism and Discrimination, which started raising concerns about institutionalised racism in general, and in the legal system in particular. Not for the first (or last) time in his career he “upset a lot of people in the legal profession”. “I gave a speech in the annual law conference called Law and the Polynesian which caused a lot of controversy at the time. Within a decade the Ministry of Justice accepted that many of our laws were mono-cultural and disadvantaged Māori and people from minority cultures.”

The shocking conditions in which children were treated in some institutions came to Mr Ludbrook’s notice through ACORD. He and his colleagues forced a judicial inquiry into the “torture” of kids in detention at Lake Alice Hospital Adolescent Unit who were being given shock treatment and paraldehyde injections as a form of punishment. The psychiatrist responsible left the country and the government later paid out millions of dollars in compensation to the victims. “ACORD was then told that many breaches of basic human rights were occurring in Auckland Social Welfare children’s homes,” he says. When the Minister refused to take the allegations seriously ACORD made a complaint to the newly established Human Rights Commission which found many of the practices unacceptable and in breach of fundamental human rights. As a result, detailed regulations were put in place to protect residents. This gave Mr Ludbrook a special interest in children’s rights issues. During his time at the Children’s Legal Centre in London in 1984-1986 he learned about the systemic discrimination suffered by children and developed skills and strategies in lobbying for children’s rights in the home, in schools and in institutional care. “I have been battling for kids ever since,”

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Law as an instrument for change ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Sailing sets ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// platform for ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ legal career \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ he says. And he (and those he has worked alongside) have had some wins. Called back to New Zealand because his elderly mother was ill, and wishing to continue working for children, he set up Youth Law in central Auckland, the first specialist children’s legal centre in Australasia. There were no paid workers and to pay the bills he practised as a barrister, acting only for children. In 1993 he was appointed founding director of the Australian National Children and Youth Law Centre based in Sydney but covering the whole of Australia. He worked there for three years and has been back on three occasions to act as locum director. Mr Ludbrook has for years been involved in the campaign against corporal punishment in schools, in institutions and in the home. His work with adoption reform has spanned almost his entire career.

Even in his 80th year, Mr Ludbrook, on behalf of a lobby group Adoption Action presented a claim to the Human Rights Tribunal that New Zealand’s adoption laws discriminate in 10 different respects in which discrimination is unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He also still contributes to Thomson/Brookers Child Law, which keeps him busy.

“I enjoyed my time in private practice but I think I have had much more satisfaction and enjoyment working outside the system. I have always been on the side of the small person and of the powerless,” Mr Ludbrook says. “My interest has been in community law and extending legal rights and information to people who cannot afford legal fees and in using the law as a way of bringing about change. I have learned that the law can be an effective instrument for social change.”

by Rachael Breckon

Navigating the ocean on a sail board helped prepare new graduate Antonio Cozzolino for a career in law. “In sport you have to deal with external pressures,” the former New Zealand windsurfing (also known as board sailing) representative says. “In a way being a litigation lawyer and an athlete are quite similar – particularly around setting goals and targets, working out the things you want to achieve and implementing a structure that helps you achieve your goals.” Admitted in June 2013, Mr Cozzolino’s journey to becoming a solicitor at Russell McVeagh was a bit unusual. After spending the first two years at university studying linguistics and French,

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Advising iwi entities ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// and Māori businesses ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ he decided to pick up law, something he had always wanted to do while growing up. Mr Cozzolino was juggling studying law and continuing his BA with being a senior New Zealand windsurfing representative, which meant being overseas three to six months a year for training and regattas. The combination of his change in academic focus and sporting commitments meant he spent eight years at Auckland University in total. Then he decided to do a Master’s degree in law through the University of Sydney. Remaining in Auckland, he commuted to Sydney for compulsory contact classes and worked for a criminal barrister in Auckland, before starting at Russell McVeagh. Mr Cozzolino says he is not quite used to telling people he is a lawyer. “I am actually a lawyer now,” he says. “And that is something to be proud of. Lawyers occupy a very special place in society.” Asked if the job is what he expected as a student, he says: “I can speak for what I am doing in litigation, which probably most closely resembles university – you research the law and provide an answer to the legal issues with which you are presented.” However there is increased pressure when working on “real problems not imaginary ones”, he says. The work pressure, work load and firm culture hasn’t held any “nasty surprises” either, and he describes his job at Russell McVeagh as “very, very supportive”. “I think that commercial law is not as tough as it might be made out to be. You are going

to work hard wherever you are – that should come as no surprise to anyone,” he says. “What is great about working for a commercial law firm is that you receive great training, and you move through the ranks with a graduate group of your peers, which is really cool and provides an extra support network. I am so grateful to be part of this place.” Mr Cozzolino has also become involved with the Auckland Young Lawyers network, sitting on its committee through the Auckland Branch of the New Zealand Law Society. “I am really enjoying that. Essentially we organise social and educational events for young lawyers. This means that I get to meet a wide range of lawyers from a similar year group – lawyers who come from other big firms, smaller firms, or who work as barristers and in-house counsel.” For the last two years Mr Cozzolino has taken a break from his sporting commitments to focus on his legal career. But that may be set to change. “I have been encouraged to keep up my sporting involvement by the firm. They have been very supportive in that way too,” he says. “I will get back into a bit more sport and do a few more competitions next year, which is really exciting.” However, the young lawyer is not going to let that distract him from his day job. “Mostly I am looking forward to the prospect of being more heavily involved in my career as a commercial litigator and definitely putting all those years of study to good use,” he says.

by Elliot Sim

Auckland lawyer Te Aopare Dewes was appointed as a senior associate for Chapman Tripp earlier this month. Graduating in 2007 with an LLB and BSC in Biology at Auckland University, Ms Dewes became a law clerk for Minter Ellison Rudd Watts. After three years in the corporate team working largely on mergers and acquisitions,

she moved to the commercial team at Chapman Tripp in early 2010. She now specialises in corporate and commercial law, particularly structuring and general commercial advice for iwi entities, Māori businesses and private equity clients. Being from Ngāti Porou and Ngāti Rangitihi, Ms Dewes says she was always interested in

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

Māori economic development. “A number of people in my family and wider networks had done a law degree and then were, in one way or another, working in areas that involved economic development for Māori.” Her focus is on commercial advice for iwi clients and Māori businesses and particularly iwi who have already been through the Treaty Settlement process. For example, the firm has advised Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei on its post settlement governance entity (PSGE) and group structure, which received assets from the Crown in its 2013 Treaty Settlement. “We helped Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei with the transfer of their existing asset base from the old structure into to the new structure, and provided governance and tax advice on how that new structure works for the new group structure.” The firm has also acted for a collective of 12 different iwi – the Iwi Collective Partnership (ICP) a complex fishing joint venture between the asset holding companies within those iwi structures which hold fishing assets, which those different iwi had received under the Fisheries Settlement. “We advised the iwi on an appropriate structure to aggregate their Treaty Settlement fisheries assets, which in this case was their annual catch entitlement (ACE).” “We used a limited partnership because it is flow through for tax and the different iwi involved had different tax profiles.” She says the advice ranged from what structure would be most efficient, to governance, to how the iwi could work within the parameters of the Māori Fisheries Act 2004; which has certain restrictions on what they can do with those fishing assets, to commercial negotiations. “We gave them advice on board appointments such as how to have representation across 12 iwi with a board of six. Then we also

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

helped them with their negotiations when they were selling the ACE, to Aotearoa Fisheries and also to Sanford.” Ms Dewes is fluent in Te Reo, a skill which helps build rapport in such a nuanced and complex negotiation environment. “Like all clients, they just want the best person for the job … I grew up immersed in my culture and Te Reo Māori. That makes it easier to build rapport with iwi and Māori clients and also means I understand the cultural drivers for decisions and the process around decision-making.” Many entities are looking at doing transactions now, according to Ms Dewes, once they receive their settlement assets and when they’re comfortable in the new structure and different boards that they have in place. While Ms Dewes says it is an exciting time in terms of Māori economic development, these entities still face challenges, particularly around building capacity in the people, growing the asset base and delivering to iwi members. “Tensions always arise for the people who are in those governing positions … issues around how much of those funds should be reinvested, versus how much should be distributed to tribal development activities,” she says. She says more iwi groups are willing to invest together, such as Ngāi Tahu and Tainui, who recently made an acquisition together with Pioneer Capital of Waikato Milking Systems (a technology manufacturer) in February. Now that Ms Dewes has become a senior associate she says she will be thinking more about “business case considerations” and being more targeted in her own approach to work. “Working with iwi and Māori businesses in any project that drives Māori economic development – that’s what I’m passionate about and that’s why I keep doing what I’m doing.”

Our Profession, Our People 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.

Nerissa Barber returns to Wellington branch Presidency

Nerissa Barber has been elected unopposed as the next Wellington branch President, and will take up the role at the branch’s annual meeting on 25 June. Until recently the Law Society’s Wellington Vice-President, Ms Barber is a Past President of the branch, serving in that role from 2010 to 2012. Chief Legal Advisor at the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Ms Barber finds that one of the many highlights of her current role is working with other people who also love working in the arts and heritage sectors, and who enjoy making a contribution and a difference. It’s a busy and varied role, which was essentially a start-up, as before her appointment the Ministry had no in-house legal counsel. An aspect of the role she enjoys is appearing in the Māori Land Court in claims for ownership of Māori cultural objects (taonga tūturu applications). Visual art is a passion of hers. Ms Barber is a friend or member of just about every art gallery in the country including Auckland Art Gallery, Govett Brewster (Life Friend and

member of the Foundation), Te Papa, Wellington Art Gallery, The Dowse, Christchurch Art Gallery (life friend), Dunedin Art Gallery (life friend). After graduating BA LLB from Victoria University, with a double major in German and History, Ms Barber was admitted in 1990. She worked for Brandon Brookfield, which became Simpson Grierson, before moving to Crown Law and then into the State Services Commission and other in-house roles. As well as the arts, Ms Barber is interested in wine and food, walking and trying to get back into golf. Her husband, David Morriss, is similarly interested in things artistic. He studied almost every music paper going at Canterbury University in his BA and B Mus, works as a classical music broadcaster with Radio New Zealand and sings as a bass soloist. Ms Barber’s Law Society governance contribution began when she was elected to the Wellington District Law Society Council in 2007. She has served in both the district law society and Wellington branch in many roles, including as convenor of the Legal Assistance Committee, co-convenor of the Women in Law Committee and Council member liaison of the Library Committee. From 2006 to 2009 she was a board member of the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand. She has also been involved in a number of community organisations, including being a volunteer with the Wellington Community Law Centres in the late 1980s and early 1990s. David Dunbar and Catherine Rodgers have been elected unopposed as branch Vice-Presidents. An in-house lawyer and current CLANZ committee member, Mr Dunbar is Registrar at the Medical Council. Like Ms Barber and Mr Dunbar, Ms Rodgers is an in-house lawyer. She is with the Parliamentary Counsel Office. The branch Council is to be decided by online voting after 12 people have stood for the 10 available positions. LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

P E O P L E I N T H E L AW

Queen’s Birthday Honours The following members and former members of the legal profession were awarded honours in the Queen’s Birthday Honours list. Justice Susan Glazebrook, of We l l i n g t o n , w a s made a Dame of the New Zealand Order of merit for services to the judiciary.

Justice Lowell Goddard QC, of Wellington, was made a Dame of the New Zealand Order of merit for services to the law.

Patricia Reddy, of Wellington, was made a Dame of the New Zealand Order of merit for services to the arts and business. Justice Rodney Hansen QC, of Auckland, was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of merit for services to the judiciary. Judge Jeremy Gittos, of Auckland, was made a Companion of the Queen’s Service Order for services to the judiciary. Judge Shonagh Kenderdine, of Wellington, was made a Companion of the Queen’s Service Order for services to the judiciary. Judge David Sheppard, of Melbourne, was made a Companion of the Queen’s Service Order for services to the judiciary. Karen Sherry, of Auckland, was awarded the Queen’s Service Medal for services to the electricity industry. Two court management staff were also awarded in the Queen’s Birthday Honours. Kevin Conroy of Carterton and Clive Asplin of Feilding were awarded the Queen’s Service Medal – Mr Conroy for services to justice and Mr Asplin for services to justice and the community.

New Queen’s Counsel Fourteen lawyers have been appointed

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

Queen’s Counsel this year, Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson QC announced on 5 June. The new silks are: Peter Whiteside, who graduated from Canterbury University in 1971. He joined Wynn Williams in 1970 where he worked on a broad range of litigation in all New Zealand courts, including three cases in the Privy Council. In March 2013 he joined the independent bar. Currently practising primarily in relation to earthquake claims and acting as an arbitrator and mediator, his areas of specialisation include real property disputes, company liquidations and receiverships, relationship property and lawyers’ discipline issues. Matthew McClelland, who graduated LLB (Hons) from Canterbury University. He worked in various law firms from 1976 until 1981, when he joined the Attorney-General’s Chambers in Hong Kong as Crown Counsel primarily prosecuting criminal matters in the District and High Courts, and appearing in the Court of Appeal. In 1987 he joined Kensington Swan where he was a partner. He joined Harbour Chambers as a barrister sole in 2003 working in the areas of professional discipline, health law, defamation/media and resource management. Russell Bartlett, who graduated LLB from Auckland University in 1975, following which he worked for various law firms before joining Chapman Tripp Sheffield, where he was made a partner in 1986. A founding partner at Ellis Gould in 1988, he joined Shortland Chambers as a barrister sole in 2000. He specialises in resource management and other local government law. Paul Rishworth, who joined Auckland University’s Law Faculty in 1987. His research interests are in the fields of human rights and comparative constitutional law, and South Pacific legal studies. His work on the New Zealand Bill of Rights has been widely cited by peers, practitioners and judges. He has worked over the years as a consultant and advisor for government agencies and groups, including the Human Rights Commission, in New Zealand and overseas on issues ranging from restrictions on hate speech to the autonomy of religious organisations to hire and ordain leaders. He was the Faculty Dean and the Head of the Department of Law 2005-2010. He remains involved in the litigation of civil rights issues in the higher courts and in community organisations.

Antonia Fisher, who graduated LLB in 1982. Ms Fisher worked at two law firms before joining Brandon Brookfield as an associate, and was made a partner in 1990, specialising in family law and medical law. She joined Barristers at Chancery in 2003 before moving to O’Connell Street Barristers in 2011, where she specialises in relationship property and medico-legal cases. Marie Dyhrberg, who graduated LLB in 1981 from Auckland University. She worked as a staff solicitor in various firms before joining the independent bar in 1990, specialising in criminal jury trial and appellate work. In 2005 she was appointed a Senior Magistrate in the Magistrate’s Court of Pitcairn, Henderson, Dulcie and Oneo Islands. She is a member of the Criminal Bar Association of NZ (a founding member from 1984) and convener of the Criminal Law Committee of the Auckland District Law Society from 2012 to present, and specialises as a senior defence counsel in complex criminal trials. Anita Chan, who graduated from Otago University in 1984, before joining various Dunedin law firms working in criminal, civil and family law and tribunals. She joined Barristers Chambers in late 1997, later moving to Princes Chambers where she is currently practising. She is Vice-President of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and is a former chair of the New Zealand Law Society Family Law Section. She specialises in complex child and financial family law cases, often with an international aspect. Paul Radich, who graduated LLB (Hons) from Victoria University in 1986. He worked for a number of Wellington law firms, becoming a partner. Before going to the independent bar in 2012 he was a partner and board member at Minter Ellison Rudd Watts. Currently a barrister at Clifton Chambers, he specialises in public law advice and litigation for public bodies including government departments and Crown entities. Matthew Palmer, who graduated LLB (Hons) from Victoria University, LLM at Yale Law School and JSD (Doctor of Laws) from Yale in 1994. He joined Treasury in 1988 before moving to the Ministry of Justice as Deputy Secretary for Justice (Public Law) in 1995. He was Pro Vice Chancellor and Dean of Law at Victoria University from 2001 to mid 2006. He then joined the New Zealand Law Foundation as an International Research Fellow, researching and writing The

Our Profession · Our People Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s Law and Constitution, which won the Legal Research Foundation’s J F Northey Award for best book published by a New Zealand-based author in 2008. He joined Crown Law as Deputy Solicitor-General (Public Law) from 2008 to 2012 before joining Thorndon Chambers as a barrister specialising in public law. Stephen Bonnar, who is a graduate of Auckland University. He joined Meredith Connell, the Auckland Crown Solicitor’s Office in 1987. In 1992 he took up a position as a senior Crown prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Services in London and in 1995 joined the Attorney-General’s Chambers in the Cayman Islands. He rejoined Meredith Connell in 1997, and was appointed a partner in 2000. In July 2002 he joined 22 Lorne Barristers Chambers. He specialises principally in criminal defence work, is a member of the Auckland Prosecution Panel, and is also instructed in civil proceedings linked to criminal proceedings, including the proceeds of crime. Paul David, who graduated BA (Hons) in Modern and Medieval languages, Cambridge University; Diploma in Law, City University London, Bar Finals, Inns of Court School of Law and LLM from Cambridge University. He worked in various common law chambers in the United Kingdom doing civil and criminal work along with specialist maritime law matters before joining Russell McVeagh as a senior solicitor in 1990. He became a partner of the firm in 1993. He joined Wilson Harle as a partner in 2002 before going to the independent bar in 2006 where he specialises in maritime, international trade and sports law. David Laurenson, who graduated LLB/ BCA from Victoria University in 1991. He worked in London as a paralegal from 1988 until 1990 before joining Bell Gully’s litigation department in Wellington in late 1990. In mid 1993 he joined the Wellington Crown Solicitor’s office prosecuting jury trials in the District and High Courts and appeals in the Court of Appeal, including prosecutions on behalf of government departments. He returned to Bell Gully in 1996, then joined Capital Chambers as a barrister in 1999. In late November 2002 he joined Thomas More Chambers. He acted for the Crown Law Department of the Kingdom of Tonga in 2009, prosecuting sedition/conspiracy charges against five members of Parliament arising out of the 2006 riots. He specialises in civil/commercial litigation.

Prudence Steven, who graduated LLB (Hons) from Canterbury University in 1992. She worked in various law firms from 1993 until becoming a partner in Goodman Steven Tavendale Reid in early 2002. She became a consultant to the firm in early 2008 before joining the independent bar in late 2008. She specialises in resource management and local government law. Paul Wicks, who graduated LLB from Auckland University in 1994. He joined Princes Chambers as a barrister sole in 1994 before moving to City Chambers in 2003. His practice centres around his specialist areas of criminal and employment law.

Appointment Wellington barrister Peter Castle has been reappointed as deputy chair of Crown Asset Management Limited, the company established to manage and realise the remaining assets of a number of failed finance companies, the public depositors of which were paid out under the Crown Retail Guarantee Scheme. CAML is also responsible for realising some of the residual properties

Law firm news

A new law practice, Denham Bramwell Lawyers, has opened for business in Manukau. Denham Bramwell Lawyers will practise from offices at Level 2, 3 Osterley Way. These offices were previously occupied by Brookfields Manukau. The new firm will offer property, estates and trusts, commercial and civil litigation and family and private client services. John Delugar and Brett Abraham, former partners of Brookfields Manukau, are joined by Fiona Cowan, Sarah Vyle and Peter Webb, who practised as barristers sole from Parkview Chambers in Manukau. Tania Sharkey, Bianca Herman, Tracy Langvad and Raewyn Yelavich are associates. The full complement of staff includes 11 lawyers and

of Southern Response Limited held following the Crown assistance package to AMI.

$1,000

The fine imposed on a Michigan lawyer on 29 May for filing an appellate brief stating: "When the judiciary acts as the bitch for the complainant, we get rulings like this." David Charron was appealing a contempt finding against him. After upholding the contempt finding, the Michigan Court of Appeals also fined him for "undignified or discourteous conduct toward the tribunal". Mr Charron says he doesn't know why he included the offending sentence in his appellate brief. He says he will pay the fine, but plans to appeal the contempt case to the state's highest court.

The Denham Bramwell partners (from left) Sarah Vyle, Brett Abraham, John Delugar, Peter Webb and Fiona Cowan.

three legal executives along with experienced support staff. John and Brett, who have experience in the commercial and property law sector, will lead this practice area. Fiona Cowan and Sarah Vyle, both experienced family and relationship property lawyers, will lead the family and private client services team. Peter Webb will specialise in commercial and civil litigation. Peter was previously CEO of a multi-national corporation. Recordon Dower Limited and Neilsons Lawyers Limited will merge on 1 July. Aaron Dower will join Derek Railey, Brian Hill and Edwin Telle as directors in the merged firm. The new firm will be known as Neilsons Lawyers Limited and will continue to practise from the current Neilsons’ premises at Level 1, 270 Neilson Street, Onehunga, Auckland.

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

Collaborative Advocacy NZ launched Collaborative Advocacy NZ launched its new name and website, www. collaborativelaw.org.nz, in Auckland on 22 May. Collaborative practice, or collaborative law, has an increasing following worldwide, as well as in New Zealand. It began overseas in the 1990s. It provides families with a dispute resolution process based around a series of focused meetings. In these meetings, the parties sit around a table with their own legal advisors and any other agreed professionals. The aim is to directly negotiate, find acceptable solutions and plan their own future in a dignified, respectful way. Collaborative law aims to minimise the conflict and stress inherent in any separation, allowing the parties to take control of decisions about their future. Collaborative Advocacy NZ was formerly known as the Collaborative Law Association of NZ.

Award for success in health and safety Wellington lawyer Hazel Armstrong was awarded the Countdown Supermarkets Lifetime Achievement Award for her success in the occupational health and safety field. The award was presented at the Safeguard New Zealand Workplace Health & Safety Awards ceremony in Auckland on 28 May. The principal of Hazel Armstrong Law, Ms Armstrong has been involved in working with unions, employees, employers and

At the launch, committee member Alan Goodwin spoke about how the recent family justice system changes mean the time is right for collaborative practice to take its place on the New Zealand dispute resolution landscape and urged members to maintain their considerable enthusiasm and energy for the process. A good representation of the different disciplines, including lawyers, attended the launch.

Hazel Armstrong with her lifetime achievement award.

(Photo on the top) At the launch of Collaborative Advocacy NZ (from left) Deborah Sim, Deborah Clapshaw and Shane Hussey. (Photo on the left) Ian Telford (left), Jennifer Perry and Amanda Billington (right) at the launch of Collaborative Advocacy NZ.

Law student in University Challenge team

government departments throughout her legal career, and also practices as an ACC, employment and health and safety lawyer. The award was for Ms Armstrong’s “determined advocacy for better health and safety and improved access to the ACC scheme via trade unions, the ACC board, commissions of enquiry, two books, and her legal practice,” the Safeguard website says. Rachael Harris

JUSTITIA Providing professional indemnity and specialist insurance products to the legal profession 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

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

Canterbury University law student Rachael Harris is a member of the university’s team for the University Challenge series to be aired on television later this year. The new series marks the return of the long-running New Zealand television quiz show which ran between 1976 and 1989. Ms Harris is in her second year of a masters degree, working under the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre. She is a Fulbright Scholar and has studied at Stanford University.

Our Profession · Our People

Fund-raiser for breast cancer A Pink Ribbon breakfast, to raise funds for breast cancer research, was held at the Auckland branch on 30 May. More than 88 people, both men and

women, attended the event, which raised more than $2,000 for the New Zealand Breast Cancer Foundation. Auckland branch staff augmented this amount by running a gold coin day in support. This event was supported by Swarbrick Beck Mackinnon and a partner of the firm, Bridget Smith, facilitated and was MC for the breakfast. Auckland branch staff Kristin Percy and Isabelle Werfelli presented on the way breast cancer impacted on their lives. Ségolène de Fontenay from the Breast Cancer Foundation also spoke, informing those attending about breast cancer statistics and how the funds raised are used. The Auckland branch has also supported “Paddle for Hope”, a breast cancer charity (over $100,000 dollars has been raised since 2011) by sponsoring a team to race. A warm up event for Paddle for Hope 2014 was held at Takapuna Boating Club on 25 May.

Henry Clayton has joined Buddle Findlay’s Wellington office as a senior solicitor in the public law team. Henry advises government clients on governance, decision-making and law making, and also advises businesses interacting with law makers, regulators and inquiries. Anna Bloomfield has joined Buddle Findlay’s Wellington office as a senior solicitor in the litigation team. Anna advises on commercial and civil dispute resolution and insolvency matters. Anna has recently returned to New Zealand after several years working and studying overseas, and was previously a solicitor in the Christchurch litigation team.

Specialists as a senior associate. David has employment law experience in both New Zealand, at Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, and internationally. David recently returned to New Zealand from the United Kingdom, where he worked in-house and at the Treasury Solicitors.

Photo on the top - Matt Atkinson (left), Sam Learmonth and Fran Darlow at the Auckland branch Pink Ribbon breakfast. Photo on the right - At the Auckland branch Pink Ribbon breakfast (from left) Charlotte Sygrove, Lucy Hopman, Emma Crowley and Sue Ironside.

ON THE MOVE An international authority on insurance and arbitration law, Professor Robert Merkin, has joined DLA Phillips Fox as a consultant. He will join the insurance Professor Merkin team, led by Grant Macdonald in Auckland and Peter Leman in Wellington. Professor Merkin is an Honorary Professor of Law in New Zealand (Auckland University Department of Commercial Law), and teaches insurance and marine insurance at postgraduate level in Australia, Hong Kong and Athens. He is immediate Past-President of the British Insurance Law Association and Vice-President of the International Association of Insurance Law. Professor Merkin will advise clients (including insurers) on insurance and policy issues, and will also provide in-house seminars for clients.

David Traylor has joined Dundas Street Employment

Kensington Swan has promoted commercial litigator Danielle Durovich to senior associate. Danielle has experience in commercial litigation Danielle Durovich with a particular focus in insolvency related litigation, insurance litigation, securities enforcement, shareholder disputes and breach of contract and negligence claims.

David Traylor

The partners of Forest Harrison announce: Christina Tan ha s resigned from the partnership. Stella Chan and Lyn Lim are continuing as partners From 30 June 2014 the firm’s offices are located at Crombie Lockwood House, Auckland City.

of the firm. Level 9, 191 Queen Street,

All enquiries should be addressed to the following: Henry Clayton

Anna Bloomfield

P O Box 828, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140 • DX CP22011 Telephone: 64 9 308 008 0 • Fax 64 9 308 0082 • email: info@forestharrison.

co.nz

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

Nathan Speir has joined Auckland boutique commercial litigation and dispute resolution firm Rice + Co as a senior solicitor. Nathan is a litigaNathan Speir tion specialist having commenced his career at Meredith Connell. Nikki Pender has become a principal of Commercial Public Law Limited, which trades as Franks & Ogilvie. She joins founding principals Stephen Franks and Rob Ogilvie. Nikki Pender Nikki, who has been a consultant with the firm for three years, will remain in charge of the firm’s litigation and dispute work. Paula Nicolaou has joined Lane Neave’s building and construction team as an associate. Paula is a specialist construction lawyer with experience in projects of significant value covering building, water services, roading,

Paula Nicolaou

Lindsay Rae

airports, health, seismic strengthening, hotels, prisons, local authority housing, PPPs, commercial premises, rail infrastructure and lignite infrastructure projects. She also has commercial property experience. Lindsay Rae has also joined Lane Neave’s Building and Construction team. Lindsay is admitted in Scotland. Before joining Lane Neave, she worked for a multinational construction company in their Europe wide Public Private Partnerships (PPP) organisation based in Scotland. She has also worked in private practice with a United Kingdom commercial law firm in their construction and special projects team. Lindsay has experience of public sector procurement projects across a wide range of sectors, and has acted for both the public and private sector, including contractors.

Maria Bialostocki (left) is the winner of this year’s Simpson Grierson Employment Law Prize. The prize is awarded annually to the student with the best overall mark in Auckland University’s employment law classes. Simpson Grierson partner, Phillipa Muir (right), presented the $1,500 cheque to Maria at an awards ceremony in Auckland on 21 May. Maria is currently working as a judges’ clerk at the Employment Court while also completing her honours dissertation and professionals. She developed her interest in Employment Law during her studies.

Significant contribution Judge Tony Couch, who has retired from the Employment Court bench, “has made a significant contribution to the development of employment law,” says Chief Employment Court Judge Graeme Colgan. Judge Couch “has been a liked and respected judge throughout the South Island and elsewhere in New Zealand. In addition to his contributions to employment law, the court has benefited from both the Judge’s knowledge of electronic technology and as the representative of Special Jurisdictions Courts on the Judicial Libraries Management Board. “The Judge will be missed by his colleagues on the Employment Court bench,” Chief Judge Colgan says. Judge Couch, who has been an Employment Court Judge based in Christchurch since 2005 until he relinquished the role recently, continues to sit as a District Court Judge. Judge Cogan says that on behalf of all the Judges of the Employment Court, he thanks Judge Couch for his service and wishes him well for his future.

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

Three good reasons to talk with a new law firm.

Tom Mahony, Michael Burrowes and Elspeth Horner share something notable. A new law firm providing specialist Insurance, Commercial and Dispute Resolution advice. Talk with us anytime: Wellington 04 473 7733 Auckland 09 557 0378

www.mbhlaw.co.nz

Effective Practice

Young law graduates: what they earn and employment rates By Geoff Adlam Research released by the Ministry of Education has found that LLB (Hons) graduates and LLB graduates who complete a legal professionals course have high initial employment rates. Tertiary students with an LLB have a much lower employment rate in the first year after graduating, but this rises quickly – probably after they have completed a legal professionals course. The research report, What young graduates earn when they leave study, provides detailed information on the employment outcomes of tertiary education – both in salary and in job prospects. The data used ends after the 2012 tax year and earnings are shown in 2012 dollars. It also focuses on “young” graduates, meaning anyone completing an LLB after the age of 24 or professionals and/or LLB (Hons) after the age of 26 is not included. Only graduates who remain in New Zealand are included. Before we get to the interesting statistics, it needs to be noted that the data for law graduates is complicated by the way the researchers have interpreted “postgraduate” qualifications. The researchers have advised that the College of Law Professional Legal Studies course was assigned to the category “Graduate certificate or diploma” while the Institute of Professional Legal Studies course was assigned to the category “Honours or

postgraduate certificate or diploma” – which also includes LLB (Hons) graduates. The researchers say the IPLS course and the College of Law course are both now regarded as “graduate certificate of diploma” – but this only applies from 2013 onwards and does not appear in the current results. What the data appears to indicate is that around 80% of young law graduates who have completed professionals will be in employment after two years. Their gross salary will be somewhere between $42,000 and $68,000 (taking the lower and upper quartiles). Those graduates who emerge with an LLB are far less likely to be in employment in their first year, with only 38% being employed. However, 58% of LLB graduates will be doing further education in their first year out – with much of this presumably being the professional legal studies course. The researchers say that law bachelors level graduates’ employment rates increased the most between years 1 and 7 after completing their initial qualification, although median earnings increased the least of these groups. “This is likely to be because only a proportion of bachelors level graduates started the process towards admission to the bar, completion of a graduate certificate or postgraduate certificate. Because the earnings shown are a median, at bachelors level they also capture those that did not do their professionals.” The difference between the gross earnings

of those who emerge from the College of Law course and those in the LLB (Hons) or IPLS group might be explained by the rumoured preference of the largest law firms for the College of Law. To give some comparison, statistics for the three comparable categories for all New Zealand tertiary graduates have been included. In all, the statistics cover 55 different fields of study.

Professional forensic accounting services in civil and commercial matters.

Investigative Accounting Economic Loss Assessment Relationship Property Valuations

Paul Moriarty BSc FCA MInstD

Level 27, PwC Tower, 188 Quay Street, Auckland 1010 P:09 363 3700 M:022 107 5787 E:paul@moriartyassociates.co.nz www.moriartyassociates.co.nz

Gross median earnings, years after qualification Qualification

Year 1

Year 2

Year 5

Year 7

LLB

$41,870

$47,508

$57,213

$67,794

Grad cert/College of Law

$51,434

$58,545

$79,715

$86,631

LLB (Hons)/IPLS

$44,621

$50,976

$67,948

$81,332

All Students

$37,959

$43,486

$51,627

$56,613

All Students Grad Cert

$46,662

$49,116

$59,165

$64,986

All Students Honours

$44,336

$49,995

$60,612

$67,342

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

Employment, years after qualification Qualification

Year 1

Year 2

Year 5

Year 7

LLB

38%

70%

72%

78%

Grad cert/College of Law

84%

82%

78%

84%

LLB (Hons)/IPLS

72%

80%

78%

79%

All Students

54%

64%

71%

74%

All Students Grad cert

80%

79%

75%

All Students Honours

56%

60%

67%

73%

Further study, years after qualification Qualification

Year 1

Year 2

Year 5

Year 7

LLB

58%

23%

17%

10%

Grad cert/College of Law

10%

LLB (Hons)/IPLS

21%

13%

12%

All Students

40%

30%

19%

15%

All Students Grad cert

15%

14%

13%

11%

All Students Honours

38%

34%

23%

15%

The report also, of course, allows comparison between the different fields of study. While a bachelors degree in law comes well down the field (17th) when comparing median incomes after seven years, it is a different story if completion of profs or an LLB (Hons) is considered:

Gross median annual salary, 7 years after qualification

*Law is in 17th place at $67,794.

Bachelors*

Graduate Cert/Dip

Honours/Postgrad Cert

Medical studies ($114,329)

Law ($86,631)

Medical studies ($83,316)

Dental studies ($91,667)

Banking/Finance ($76,077)

Banking/Finance ($82,273)

Pharmacy ($75,643)

Accountancy ($75,187)

Law ($81,332)

Veterinary studies ($73,266)

Info Systems ($73,983)

Economics ($79,835)

Radiography ($73,009)

Behavioural Science ($72,572)

Accountancy ($78,757)

The report supports Law Society research which shows that around 60% of new lawyers who are admitted to the bar (ie, who have completed their professionals course) take out a practising certificate.

Life in the law

Welsh lawyer Graham Jones has failed in an application to review being turned down for appointment for a permanent role as district judge. The proceedings revealed that he missed out because he had seven penalty points on his driving licence. The

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

points came for speeding in 2010 (four points and a £650 fine) and in 2012 (three points) for failing to obey a traffic signal. Although Mr Jones had sat as a part-time deputy district judge since 2010, the Judicial Appointments Commission said that because of his penalty points he was “not of good character”. The Commission has a policy that applicants with more than six penalty points will not normally be selected. This is in spite of Mr Jones being assessed as “an outstanding candidate for the post of district judge” after he successfully completed intensive screening tests at a number of “selection days” attended by over 100 fellow candidates.

The bigger the firm, the bigger the bill …? American professional services research company BTI Consulting Group has released a report on current billing rates. What Clients Pay and What Law Firms Charge: BTI’s Billing Rate Reference 2014 appears to show that BigLaw firms (those with over 1,000 lawyers) charge a premium for their services. BTI says the largest charge 31% more than a typical law firm and 54% more than a smaller law firm. England’s Lord Chief Justice has approved the use of the title “Ms Justice

Zapping a witness with a trick pen during a trial has resulted in a fine of $3,000 for Californian lawyer Don Howarth. Mr Howarth appeared in a Utah trial to determine whether electrical currents from a power plant were harming cows. One of the witnesses, an academic expert on electricity, said 1.5 volts could not be felt by a person. Handing the witness a child’s joke pen, Mr Howarth said it contained a 1.5 volt battery and challenged him to push it and tell the jury if he felt it or not. The witness pushed the pen and received a strong electric shock,

And, just for completeness, former US family court judge Denise Pratt (see Effective Practice, LawTalk 842) lost in a landslide to Houston family lawyer Alicia Franklin in voting to secure the Republican Party nomination for the 311th Family District Court. Ms Franklin will now face the Democrat contender in the November general election.

[1991] 3 SCR 326 (SCC) at 333: ‘I would add that the fruits of the investigation which are in the possession of counsel for the Crown are not the property of the Crown for use in securing a conviction but the property of the public to be used to ensure that justice is done …’.” -Heath J, R v Sullivan [2014] NZHC 1105 (23 May 2014).

The art of judgment writing “[34]… as I understand the Crown to acknowledge, its role is not as an adversary party but, rather, as a ‘minister of justice’ with the obligation of disclosing all relevant information to the accused. Disclosure issues must always be considered on the basis that information in the possession or control of the Crown is not something held by it for the purpose of securing a conviction. Rather, as Sopinka J aptly put it in R v Stinchcombe

“[33] In the present case, I am in no doubt that the footage of Mr Banks broadcast by TV3/Media Works in the 6 o’clock news bulletin on 22 May 2014 was neither fair, nor balanced. It did not respect Mr Banks’ rights. It was gratuitous and tasteless. The justifications advanced by Ms Bradley were, in my view, disingenuous. The footage broadcast did not show Mr Banks’ reaction to the interview being played in court. Rather, it was a sideshow broadcast seemingly to entertain. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the broadcast was intended to expose Mr Banks to ridicule and/or derision. There was, in my judgment, no news value in the footage at all, and no public interest was served by broadcasting it. In my judgment, TV3/Media Works’ decision to broadcast the footage was irresponsible and it reflects no credit on the organisation.” -Wylie J, R v Banks [2014] NZHC 1155 (28 May 2014).

Advertising Co-ordinator

Th a

causing his body to jerk and to drop the pen. It appears that as well as the small battery the pen also contained a transformer which boosted the voltage to 750 volts. Fourth District Judge James Brady later found that Mr Howarth’s conduct amounted to battery of a witness (no pun intended).

law

Russell” by newly appointed High Court judge Alison Russell QC. Ms Justice Russell will be the first female judge who is not addressed as “Mrs Justice”.

as the w t

Criminal Justice Act 1954 as amended by s17 of the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1975: “45B. Prohibition against publication of names of persons accused of offences unless Court otherwise orders – (1) Unless the Court by order otherwise permits, no person shall publish, in any report relating to any proceedings commenced in any Court after the commencement of this section in respect of any offence, the name of the person accused of the offence or any particulars likely to lead to his identification unless and until that person is found guilty of the offence with which he is charged, or of any other offence of which he is liable to be convicted in the proceedings, and a conviction is entered against him by the Court.” Section 45B came into force on 19 September 1975. For the next 10 months New Zealand law effectively had a presumption against publication of the name of anyone accused of a criminal offence. This contrasts with the current law where s200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 allows a court to suppress publication of a person’s name when charged, convicted or acquitted of an offence only if the court is satisfied that publication would be likely to cause one of several specified outcomes. The quick demise of s45B was influenced by the news in 1976 that a Government MP had been charged with an offence involving two boys who had been invited to his motel room for a drink. (See also the comments from Nigel Hampton QC on this case, pages 4-7). The charges were thrown out at the depositions hearing. The problem was that while “Government MP” was possibly broad enough to overcome s45B, the very finite pool of male Government MPs decided to remove any doubts that they were involved and almost all made public statements to that effect. A few months later the experiment on blanket name suppression was over. Section 2(1) of the Criminal Justice Amendment Act 1976, which came into force on 29 July 1976, repealed s45B.

Christine Wilson LAWTALK

LAWPOINTS

OUR WEBSITES

04 463 2905 advertising@lawsociety.org.nz

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

The Most It is quite likely that the longestrunning litigation in the world is a court case about a piece of land in Doshipura, Varanasi in India – now 136 years and counting. The case, which involves a disagreement between Shias and Sunnis over the rights to eight plots of land and two graves within it, began in 1878. The Supreme Court of India made what should have been a final ruling in 1981 (Gulam Abbas v State of Uttar Pradesh [1981] AIR 2198). However, for various reasons the judgment was not implemented and the parties are still negotiating a final settlement. Claims that the world’s longest litigation case ended in India on 28 April 1966 after 761 years were rebutted in 1991. After much research G Hanumantha Reddy proved that the lawsuit allegedly begun in 1205 over rights of precedence at religious festivals had actually been filed in 1964. Mr Reddy’s research was driven by his (unsuccessful) desire to remove the case from the Guinness Books of Records and replace it with his own claim for litigation related to his employment which lasted for 44 years. Some New Zealand litigation has run for over a decade. It is possible that the 17 years for Television New Zealand Ltd v Gloss Cosmetic Supplies Ltd (in liquidation) could be the longest. Looked at by subject matter, some of the New Zealand contenders appear to be the following: Breach of contract: Proceedings were filed in 2001 by Carter Holt Harvey in what was a lengthy dispute over the workability of the electricity generation plant at Kinleith. After eight years the proceedings ended in

a 158-day trial in the High Court in which Justice Cooper presided (Carter Holt Harvey v Genesis Energy and Rolls-Royce). By the time the matter was resolved by settlement on 17 February 2010, over one million documents had been disclosed, resulting in an agreed court bundle of 5,571 documents (93,098 pages). Employment: The longest-running employment litigation is believed to be the case which effectively began on 15 November 2002 when Lynne Snowdon gave notice of a personal grievance to her employer, Radio New Zealand. Over 11 years later, in the Employment Court decision Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZEmpC 45 (1 April 2014) Judge Ford noted that there had been 23 interlocutory hearings, six applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and 70 formal minutes, orders and rulings issued during the period leading up to commencement of the substantive hearing. Insider Trading: On 31 July 1995 Fletcher Challenge made a takeover offer for the 15% or so of shares it did not own in publicly listed Southern Petroleum No Liability. The takeover was completed in January 1996 but the minority shareholders in Southern had not agreed with the adequacy of the offered share price. In 2002 some of the minority shareholders were granted leave to bring an action alleging breaches of the insider trading regime in the Securities Markets Act 1988. The Court of Appeal finally ended the matter on 21 December 2011 (Haylock v Patek [2011] NZCA 674) when it dismissed the appeal by the Southern shareholders. Intellectual Property: On 8 May 1989 Justice Robertson granted an interim injunction to TVNZ for breach of its trade mark “Gloss” in proceedings against Gloss Cosmetic Supplies Ltd. The next major development was in 1997 when the defendant succeeded in having the plaintiff’s claim struck out and gaining an order for an inquiry into damages it had suffered because of the injunction. No further action was taken until 2003. In 2006, over 17 years later in what he described as

Validatum Pricing for Professionals

“remarkable” proceedings Justice Cooper struck out a claim for damages in Television New Zealand Ltd v Gloss Cosmetic Supplies Ltd (in liquidation) 25 August 2006, HC Auckland, CIV 2003-404-003928.

Scambuster Kind-hearted lawyers who receive an emailed call for help from Jeanne Fortuyn should suppress any altruistic urges. Ms “Fortuyn”, who has variously given her age as 62 and 80 (and probably lives in Nigeria), has been trying to scam lawyers for several years. The latest attempt is headed “Help” and reads: “I am at the end of the road. I am trying to start up a charity non governmental organization, however I may not be able to complete it due to my health constraint. I will need your assistance to help me undertake it.” Delete it. Albert Dan, Richard Kofow and Nathaniel Smith are names used in a routine debt recovery email scam. A response to the initial inquiry results in presentation of a fake Loan Agreement between two apparently New Zealand-resident parties, with New Zealand addresses. The “residential property” of the borrower turns out to be a standalone commercial premise in Auckland. The New Zealand Law Society has prepared two reference resources for lawyers trying to work out if the email they have received is a scam. Names used by scammers who target lawyers and Tell-tale phrases used in scam emails are both available at http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/in-practice/ practice-management/email-scam-information.

NZs most comprehensive legal salary resource for Managing Partners & Practice Managers — Closes Friday, 11th of July

VALIDATUM.COM/SALARY 24

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

Practising Well

Resolving conflict positively By Melanie Shaw Conflict is inevitable in any relationship and even more so in the workplace where we often have to work with others who have differing viewpoints to us. We cannot expect that everyone has the same needs, opinions and expectations as us all of the time. So how do we deal with conflict in a way which is mature and doesn’t end up like a playground argument with insults being hurled? Well I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that it is all down to communication and compromise. Avoiding conflict won’t work as it will happen no matter how hard you try to escape it so instead face it head on, talk it through and remember that you are aiming to resolve the situation. It isn’t about winning or coming out on top. Here are some tips to help you stay focused and work through conflict in a positive way that will actually help boost your emotional intelligence as well as make you feel better about the situation at hand.

Pick your battles The first step to a resolution is to think about what you hope the outcome will be. Is the issue important enough to invest energy in? We can quite easily get caught up in the small things that happen and damage good relationships because we just couldn’t let something go. It’s normal to get fed up with situations at work or at home but knowing when to take action and when to just accept them as an everyday niggle is important as you can’t take on every battle. So before tackling the things that irritate you, get a game plan. Is it your responsibility to tackle it, who are the key players and what outcomes do you want to achieve? There is no point ruffling feathers just for the fun of it.

Stick to the point It is common when having a disagreement in any relationship to go off on a tangent and circle around the actual thing you are disagreeing on. Often we will be holding onto previous hurt or resentment and this can make its

way into the current conflict situation and mean we end up bringing up issues from the past that bear no relevance. I have to admit to this myself as I have a very long memory and can remember comments made by my hubby from 15 years ago! So when conflict arises try to stick to the main focus of the current content and don’t bring up old incidents or comments as these will only help fuel the disagreement further.

Avoid the blame game Ah the blame game. It’s one we all play from time to time, but it isn’t actually terribly helpful. Try to avoid starting your conversation with “You always...,” “You never...,” “You should have....,” “You can’t...,” as this causes barriers and enhances the resistance from the person you are talking to. When people feel they are being blamed, they tend to become defensive and a little hostile as their integrity is being challenged which leads to them losing focus on the issue at hand and makes the disagreement feel personal. So try using the “I” message. Start your discussions with “I wonder if ....,” “I feel...” or “I have been thinking....” This keeps the discussion on a more equal balance and allows for more open communication. So when I get home and my hubby hasn’t done the breakfast dishes again I might say: “I don’t like clutter and feel a bit stressed when the worktops are messy. I’d really appreciate it if you could keep the kitchen area tidy.” This will bring about a better outcome than if I ranted on about how he never does anything in the house and it’s all his mess anyway.

Listen—really listen Listening is the key to good conflict resolution, and I don’t mean just letting someone speak while all the time thinking about when you can jump in and outdo them with your side of the argument. No I mean stopping, taking a breath and really hearing what the other person is saying. So don’t interrupt them. Just listen attentively while keeping good eye contact and a relaxed body posture. When they have finished speaking acknowledge their

feelings as this shows that you are willing to communicate and work through the issue. Remember that an argument or disagreement is best resolved with compromise. It’s not about winning or getting your own way.

Embrace the grey When we are involved in a conflict situation it is common to think in terms of right and wrong and we end up demanding that the other person change their views to fit with ours. This isn’t always going to be possible, as everyone comes at a situation from their own knowledge base and their own perspective. Sometimes there is no clear right or wrong answer so it helps to try to understand where the other person is coming from and accept that we might need to agree to disagree and allow ourselves to be okay with not getting exactly what we want.

Calmness is key This is one of the most important aspects of conflict resolution. Problems cannot get resolved when we are raging with fury. It is only when you are calm that you are able to accurately read and make sense of verbal and non-verbal communication. So keep a check on your emotions and don’t go into a meeting or a discussion when you are boiling with rage. Instead take a step back and calm down so that you can focus on the content of the issue without the emotional baggage. It may be necessary to acknowledge and name your feelings by saying “I am feeling really upset right now, I need to take some time to cool down.” By acknowledging that you are feeling upset it shows that you have awareness of yourself and the skills needed for positive communication. So take a walk and burn up that negative energy or go into the store cupboard and have a good tantrum and then you have more chance of being focused and clear headed. Conflict is a normal part of life but differences of opinion don’t have to result in a full scale war. Creative problem solving can lead to better outcomes for all involved so try to create a win-win and remain focused on the actual issue and not the personalities and LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

emotions involved. We are all different and managing other people’s points of difference can be frustrating and challenging but if we remain focused and in control of our emotions we can actually create really positive and inspiring outcomes. So focus on what the other person needs, wants or thinks. Work through the situation in positive, respectful ways and be willing to see the other perspective and you might not

always get your own way but if you become part of the solution you have every chance of meeting someone half way. 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.

Technology

Why should you care about Web 3.0? By Brad Booysen For many people, the technology and capabilities of the internet are considered too daunting and confusing to begin wrapping their heads around. I mean, why bother trying to understand what the next online trends and experiences may be when all you look at is email and news sites? The reason is simple; the internet is constantly changing. The fact is although you may simply like to check your email, you could one day have your computer predicting your online interests simply by the content contained in those email messages. You like to read news sites? Well soon the Semantic Web may deliver you your perfect selection of news based on your past searching patterns. Whether or not you appreciate the extraordinary pace at which the internet is changing, it doesn’t stop it from happening. The best strategy is to make the most of it and embrace the endless opportunities that Web 3.0 can offer your firm. So here it is, a brief guide to the changing face of the internet.

The changing web If we start at the very beginning, Web 1.0 was the name given to the earliest idea and version of the World Wide Web. Characteristics of this stage include people being able to view webpages, but not comment or publish anything on them so they therefore could consume the information being shown to them, but not provide commentary or feedback. A person called a “Webmaster” or “Content Creator” made

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

static pages and the small amount of revenue that could be made at this stage went to the people with the highest number of page views. The second stage of the internet is referred to as, you’ll never guess, Web 2.0. The characteristics of this stage are early interaction from users and the ability to update websites more easily. This stage of the internet has also been referred to as the “Social Web” as it is associated with the beginnings of social media and user-generated content. If you think of Web 1.0 as the past and Web 2.0 as the present, then Web 3.0 is most definitely the future of the internet. So how can be people be sure about what the future of the internet may be? Well in reality we can’t, but that doesn’t stop people from predicting the exciting changes we may see online, with one of the most prominent theories being the “Semantic Web”.

What is it? To put it in simple terms, the Semantic Web is the idea that in the future, the internet will be able to be highly intuitive and therefore more knowledgeable about what you want to access, see and do online. The idea has come from the inventor of the World Wide Web himself, Tim Berners-Lee, and is currently being worked on as we speak. One of his main observations has been the way that search engines are currently capable of matching words that you type to web pages but are not able to truly understand what you want to see. He wants all data to be connected and for computers to have the ability to think more along the lines of a human. This idea of an instinctual internet may seem very exciting, but there have also been

multiple challenges. As the web is obviously extremely vast, it is therefore difficult to implement new systems. However, I am sure in the next 10 years we will begin to experience the age of a highly personalised internet experience as part of Web 3.0.

What does this all mean for me and my business?

The main impact of Web 3.0 technologies, and the Semantic Web in particular, is a possible shift in power. If large companies such as Microsoft are slow to adapt, they may lose out big time in the long run. On the other side of things, small and medium businesses will have a chance to become leaders with the invention of new web technologies. So what does this mean for you and your business? Well firstly, I would say do your research! If you are involved in sales, have a social media presence, advertise on the web etc, it is important to realise just how much this will shake up the way you work. Even if you just check your emails at home, like I mentioned previously, you will still be affected. This post only briefly skims the surface of what will possibly be an online revolution. Secondly, be ready to adapt. It’s real and it’s happening, so the more flexible you or your business are, the easier it will be to adapt. Brad Booysen is the founder of Storkk (www. getstorkk.com), a New Zealand based startup that’s helping lawyers move their practice to the cloud. He is passionate about technology and how it can transform the way we work and play.

Law Reform Report

Some problems with MBIE uninvited direct sale exemption proposals Limiting exemptions from uninvited direct sales to only some of the financial products which are subject to the compliance regime for financial advisers could place an uneven burden on some market participants, the New Zealand Law Society says. The Law Society has provided comments to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on whether regulations need to be developed to resolve possible difficulties with overlapping compliance obligations when new legislation comes into force. From 17 June 2014, a new section of the Fair Trading Act 1986 will regulate uninvited direct sales to consumers with the aim of providing protection from pressure selling. This will replace the Door to Door Sales Act 1967. The Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMC) also provides protection against pressure selling of financial products, but provides exemptions in certain circumstances. MBIE says there is concern that in some cases where financial product sales are

Law Society welcomes IRD initiative on building costs The New Zealand Law Society has welcomed the Inland Revenue Department’s initiative in providing certainty on the tax implications of the costs of demolishing an existing building on a building site. In its comments on IRD Draft Question We’ve Been Asked QWB0124, the Law Society says the IRD conclusions represent a fair application of the relevant case law principles and statutory provisions. However, it notes that the QWBA does not comment on the impact of a taxpayer

exempt under the FMC there could be practical difficulties if the uninvited direct sale provisions applied. The protection under the new legislation may also confer little additional benefit to consumers. The Law Society says it agrees with MBIE that it may be “reasonably necessary” to provide exemptions from the uninvited direct sales provisions for sales of financial products which are already subject to a FMC exemption. However, it says it is not sure that MBIE’s proposal is sufficiently wide to address the issue of potential overlap of different compliance obligations in respect of the same activity. “As a result, we suggest that there is some logic to extending the exemption to apply to all financial products that are subject to the compliance regime imposed on financial advisers under the Financial Advisers Act 2008,” it says. Without such uniform coverage, an uneven compliance burden could be imposed on some market participants. This would depend on

whether the financial products in which they deal are regulated under the FMC and not the Financial Advisers Act. “Such an outcome would appear to require those market participants to implement different compliance regimes for different classes of financial product,” the Law Society says. “That would be costly to implement and have the potential to create more problems than it solves, particularly in terms of the risk of confusion among the investing public.” The Law Society also asks why the proposed exemption should be limited to authorised financial advisers and QFE advisers, but not to all other registered financial advisers. It says all categories of advisers under the Financial Advisers Act should be covered. A cooling-off period could also create risks of gaming and market distortions in areas such as state asset privatisation and the Kiwisaver product market, the Law Society submission says.

having a pattern or, or being accustomed to, demolishing buildings on a regular or recurring basis in the course of carrying on a business. “The Law Society considers that comment addressing this issue would be a useful addition to the analysis in the QWBA,” it says.

The submissions are available at www. lawsociety.org.nz/news-and-communications/ law-reform-submissions.

Recent submissions The Law Society recently filed submissions on: • Health and Safety Reform Bill; • QWB0124: Income Tax – Costs of demolishing an existing building on a building site; • Uninvited direct sales – potential exemptions for certain sales of financial products; • In-Court Media Coverage consultation paper; • Jury Rules 1990, proposed amendments; and • Legal Aid Supervised Provider Policy, proposed changes.

Coming up The Law Society is currently preparing submissions on numerous bills and government discussion documents. Members are welcome to contribute comments to the Law Reform Committee, specialist committees and sections preparing the submissions. For a full list of upcoming submission deadlines and information about how to participate, visit http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/law-reform/ work-in-progress. For more information on NZLS law reform activities contact vicky.stanbridge@lawsociety. org.nz.

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

Regulatory

Lawyers’ duty to co-operate By Paul Collins In 2012 we published an article by Paul Collins entitled The duty to play ball. This continues to be a topical issue and there have been a number of developments since then. This article should be of interest to all lawyers. Lawyers have a duty to co-operate with the complaints, investigative and disciplinary processes established under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA). This does not mean, however, that a lawyer cannot defend him or herself in relation to a complaint. The complaint may well have little or no foundation in fact, for example, and warrant a well-considered, robust defence. Lawyers are, in this regard, entitled to the protections of the law available to all citizens, including such fundamental matters as natural justice and the associated concepts of fairness and due process, and the range of privileges recognised at law. When a complaint about a lawyer is made, however, that lawyer has a duty to co-operate. This is spelt out in the LCA itself and is consistent with s3(2)(b) which refers to the statutory purposes being achieved, among other means, by providing “a more responsive regulatory regime”. The developing jurisprudence since the LCA’s implementation has firmly established this duty and provided further guidance on how it should play out in practice. The first level of duty to co-operate is spelled out in ss141(b) and (c) of the LCA. This states that a standards committee “(b) may require the person complained against to appear before it to make an explanation in relation to the complaint or matter” and “(c) may, by written notice served on the person complained against, request that specified information be supplied to the standards committee in writing”. Section 147(2) outlines the duty of lawyers to provide to the standards committee such documents, papers, accounts, or records in the possession or under the control of the lawyer, as might be required.

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

Sections 204 (c) and (d) confer a similar power on the LCRO. Section 262 makes it an offence to obstruct a standards committee or the LCRO. It states: 1. Every person commits an offence who wilfully obstructs, hinders, resists, or deceives any standards committee, investigator, or other person in the execution of any powers conferred on that standards committee, investigator, or other person by s147 or s164 or s169 or s170 or s172 or s173. 2. Every person commits an offence who wilfully obstructs, hinders, resists, or deceives the Legal Complaints Review Officer, or any person to whom any of the functions and powers of the Legal Complaints Review Officer have been delegated under this Act, in the performance of any of the functions, or the exercise of any of the powers, conferred on the Legal Complaints Review Officer or any such delegate by this Act. 3. Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $25,000. The perils of failing to co-operate do not end with a possible District Court conviction and fine under s262, because of the inherent

supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court over lawyers (LCA ss268 and 270). This includes the possibility of professional sanctions being imposed directly by the court. Section 251 relates to contempt of the disciplinary tribunal. In subsections (1) (b) and (c), it provides that every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 who (b) wilfully interrupts or obstructs the proceedings of the disciplinary tribunal or otherwise misbehaves in the disciplinary tribunal; or (c) wilfully and without lawful excuse disobeys any order or direction of the disciplinary tribunal in the course of the hearing of any proceedings. Since the LCA came into force, the courts have consistently underlined the duty of lawyers to co-operate. Justice Cooper was the first to spell it out post LCA in his judgment on the now oft quoted Parlane case (Parlane v New Zealand Law Society Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee No. 2, HC Hamilton CIV-2010419-1209, 20 December 2010). It is “axiomatic”, Justice Cooper said, “that practitioners must co-operate with those tasked with dealing with complaints made, even if practitioners consider that

Financial Dispute Resolution – helping build clients’ confidence in your nominee company Financial Dispute Resolution Service (FDRS) provides conflict resolution and complaint management systems to enhance your relationship with clients. + Competitive fees + Adding value to compliance + Helping you to resolve complaints before they escalate to disputes

+ Skilled and experienced practitioners and relationship managers + Conflict management training and systems

Find out more. Contact the Financial Dispute Resolution Service: 0508 337 337 or www.fdr.org.nz Stuart Ayres – Scheme Director, Wellington Rob Tucker – Relationship Manager, Auckland

Owned and operated by FairWay Resolution Limited www.fairwayresolution.com

the complaints are without justification”. In his judgment, Justice Cooper outlined the important public interest reasons for this. “The purposes of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act include maintenance of public confidence in the provision of legal services, protection of consumers of legal services and recognition of the status of the legal profession,” Justice Cooper said. “To achieve those purposes, the Act provides for what it described as ‘a more responsive regulatory regime in relation to lawyers and conveyancers’. The provisions of Part 7 of the Act dealing with complaints and discipline are central to achieving the purposes of the Act. “I consider that legal practitioners owe a duty to their fellow practitioners and to the persons involved in administering the Act’s disciplinary provisions (whether as members of a standards committee or employees of the New Zealand Law Society) to comply with any lawful requirements made under the Act. “There must also be a duty to act in a professional, candid and straightforward way in dealing with the [Law] Society and its representatives. It is completely unacceptable for a practitioner to engage in what appears to have been an abusive campaign such as Mr Parlane conducted here. “The duties to which I have referred do not exist to protect the sensibilities of those involved in administering the Act’s disciplinary provisions. While courtesy is a normal aspect of professional behaviour expected of a practitioner, it is not an end in itself. The purpose of the disciplinary procedures is to protect the public and ensure that there is confidence in the standards and probity met by members of the legal profession,” Justice Cooper said. Following the well-established “duty to co-operate”, outlined by both legislation and precedent, the courts have further clarified more aspects relating to co-operation and non-co-operation. In Legal Complaints Review Officer v B [2012] NZHC 1349, Justice Goddard exercised the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to compel a lawyer to provide files that the LCRO had lawfully requested (on a review of a fee complaint) but had persistently been refused without lawful excuse. It is now well-established that a lawyer may aggravate his or her position before a standards committee, the LCRO, or the tribunal, by behaving in an obstructive, belligerent or evasive manner. Not only can the obstructive behaviour lead to a disciplinary charge in its own right, but it

can also result in the aggravation of penalty in the underlying complaint. Cases where this has been established include Hart v Auckland Standards Committee 1 of New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZLR 103, Daniels v Complaints Committee 2 of the Wellington District Law Society [2011] 3 NZLR 850, and Sisson v The Standards Committee (2) of the Canterbury-Westland Branch of the New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZAR 416 (HC). Some underlying propositions that have emerged from the profession’s experience with the LCA since it commencement now over five years ago are that: • an essential feature of co-operation with the institutions of discipline is the timely provision of information and relevant documentation; • candour in dealing with the professional bodies, on occasion including the candid admission of a professional lapse, will serve the lawyer’s best interests in the long run; and • independent advice is essential for any lawyer engaging with the institutions of the profession in this area. Nowhere in professional life is the loss of objectivity and sound judgement more likely to occur than in a lawyer’s dealings with a complaint about him or herself. Similarly, no area in professional life has greater potential for mental blocks, procrastination, prevarication and, sometimes, unproductive recrimination. One good reason for obtaining independent

advice is the need to exercise careful judgement about achieving the balance between actively and legitimately defending the complaint while at the same time fulfilling the requirements of professional responsibility, including the expectation of reasonable co-operation and candour. Failing to achieve that balance, either way, could have adverse consequences for the lawyer. It is important to note, too, that a great many of the complaints received by the Lawyers Complaints Service do not lead to an adverse finding against the lawyer complained about. In the Law Society’s annual report concerning the exercise of regulatory functions and powers for the year to 30 June 2013, it was noted that 1,947 complaints had been closed during that year and determinations of unsatisfactory conduct, or decisions to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Tribunal, occurred in only 230 cases, or 11.8%. Paul Collins is an Auckland barrister who moved to the independent bar in 2012. Before that he was a senior litigation partner at Glaister Ennor in Auckland. Paul has advised law societies (including the New Zealand Law Society) since the mid-1990s on a wide range of matters relating to the regulation and governance of the legal profession in New Zealand, including complaints and discipline, admissions and practising certificates, the Fidelity Fund, and related matters.

THE ADVANCED

BUSINESS SKILLS SERIES

The College of Law New Zealand is offering advanced workshops in: • Commercial Acumen • Courtroom Confidence • Governance Essentials • Investigative Interviewing • Legal Project Management

• Negotiation Skills • Organisational Resilience Audit • Resilience • Strategies for Business Development • Working in the Maori Business Sector

“Enlightening and thought provoking...Personally and professionally invaluable.”

Call (09) 300 3151, email cle@collaw.ac.nz or download from www.collaw.ac.nz

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

2nd Edition

Proof version V5

national aspects of property, support and spousal tenance

eedings under the Property ationships) Act 1976

tent of this book is taken from ly popular LexisNexis looseleaf Fisher on Matrimonial and ship Property and Family Law It contains comprehensive e of a wide range of topics and the most relevant and recent w as well as detailed discussion sues and references to other ions, case law and statutes.

in New Zealand, 16th ed, 2014

and, 2nd ed, 2009

ation, 15th ed, 2013

Colour Yes

Spine width TBC

Date created 10/01/2014

The Bookshelf

Designer contact details Name: Osmyn Morgan Mobile: 022 603 8794 Email: osmynmorgan@gmail.com NOTE: LN email address not in use

Relationship Dissolution, 2nd Edition

Relationship Dissolution

support

2ND EDitioN • Atkin • Caldwell • Harrison • Hicks Patterson • Swadling

Harrison • Hicks

tenance

Trim size 165mm (w) x 235mm (h)

Relationship Dissolution

and, 4th ed, 2012

2ND EDitioN

Bill Atkin John Caldwell Geoff Harrison David Hicks Bill Patterson Kirsty Swadling

BY BILL ATKIN, JOHN CALDWELL, GEOFF HARRISON, DAVID HICKS, BILL PATTERSON, KIRSTY SWADLING

This book has been assembled from commentary in the looseleaf services Fisher on Matrimonial and Relationship Property and Family Law Service. The original looseleaf paragraph numbers are used. The publisher’s focus is on providing practical guidance to lawyers on the relevant issues when they have a client who is going through the end of a marriage or de facto relationship. LexisNexis NZ Ltd, May 2014, 978-1-92722793-0, 753 pages, paperback, $161 (GST included, p&h excluded).

Honourable Rex Mason Prize for legal writing revived Authors of legal articles which were published between 1 January 2011 and 31

Got Tweets? @mylawsociety 30

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

December 2013 are eligible for one of three legal writing prizes. Although the Honourable Rex Mason Prize for Excellence in Legal Writing is awarded annually, no award has been made since 2010 and it is intended to award the prize for each of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 calendar years. Submissions for one of the three awards may now be made, having opened on 1 June. The closing date is 31 August 2014. The prize is awarded to the best article appearing in any New Zealand legal publication in each calendar year. The prize – $1,000 each year – is managed by the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Law Society, as trustee for the Honourable Rex Mason Trust. Under the terms of the trust, the judges are a nominee of the Chief Justice (Justice William Young), the Dean of Victoria University of Wellington Law School (Professor Tony Smith), and the Editor of the New Zealand Law Journal (Bernard Robertson). The judges are required to be guided by a number of factors. These are: the educational value of each article, its literary value, its ability to stimulate awareness in young lawyers of the nature and function of law as seen in and derived from personal experience, the extent to which it draws attention to the need for development of law in times of

social change, and the extent to which each article stimulates the interest of practising members of the legal profession. Submissions should be made to the Manager, Wellington branch, New Zealand Law Society, PO Box 494, Wellington 6145. The prize is New Zealand’s longestestablished legal writing award, having been set up in 1973. It commemorates Henry Greathead Rex Mason (1885-1975), one of New Zealand’s longest-serving MPs. After completing an LLB at Victoria University College, Mr Mason became a lawyer in Pukekohe. He began a long career as an MP when he was elected to Parliament in 1926. When he retired in 1966 he had been Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in the first Labour Government and also in the second Labour Government, from 1957 to 1960. He was the driving force behind the Crimes Act 1961 and was awarded an honorary LLD by Victoria University. The last winner of the prize, for the best legal article published between 1 January and 31 December 2010, was Hamish McQueen. His winning article, Parliamentary business: A Critical Review of Parliament’s Role in New Zealand’s Law-Making Process, was published in the Auckland University Law Review.

Judicial Review – A New Zealand Perspective, 3rd edition Reviewed by Matthew Smith Through his scholarship and in his legal practice Graham Taylor has made a significant contribution to the development of our “significantly indigenous” body of administrative law (Budget Rent A Car Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 414, 418 (CA) per Lord Cooke) and, within it, to the law and practice of judicial review here. The third edition of his textbook Judicial Review: A New Zealand Perspective (2014) marks his most recent scholarly contribution in this area. Graham Taylor’s stated aim in the third edition (in common with editions one and two) is “to write a practical and concise book on one aspect of administrative law – the process of judicial review”, with the further and related intent “to bring a person with the need to engage in judicial review principles and authorities relevant to his or her problem in about ten minutes” (Preface, xxxi). So measured, the book is a success. Assuming the German-American philosopher Walter Kauffmann to be right that the function of a book review is “to give some idea of the contents and character of the book”, it is helpful to look to the Table of Contents to see how the third edition of this textbook will help those seeking answers to their questions. The Table of Contents shows that the third edition is divided into four parts – ‘The Basic Structure of Judicial Review’ (Part One); ‘The Process of Judicial Review’ (Part Two); ‘Procedure and Evidence’ (Part Three); and ‘Grounds of Judicial Review’ (Part Four). Within these four parts are set out, to two -and in some chapters three -indented levels of detail, the issues and the sub-issues which are addressed in the 16 chapters; an approach which is helpful in providing markers for the time-pressed reader. Take by way of example the research question “can my client judicially review a decision of a statutory regulator not to prosecute?” Help in answering this question can quickly be found through the Table of Contents – Chapter 2 ‘The Breadth of Judicial Review’ has as its ninth major indent ‘Decisions to Prosecute’, and under that the minor indent ‘Statutory Authority Prosecutions’. It directs the reader to page 48 and the discussion to be found there of leading

cases on this issue. A second example is the research question “how is evidence to be given in judicial review?” Help in answering this question can again quickly be found through the Table of Contents – Chapter 10 ‘Evidence in Judicial Review Proceedings’ has as its fourth major indent ‘Mode of Evidence’, and under that the minor indent ‘Affidavit or Oral Evidence’. It directs the reader to page 400 for a discussion on the ‘Current practice’ for evidence in judicial reviews. In addition to setting out in a comprehensive way the law and practice in this area, Judicial Review: A New Zealand Perspective contains helpful strategic pointers for practitioners considering whether judicial review might provide the means to a desirable end for a client affected by the exercise of public power. Chapter 9, ‘Information Gathering before Proceeding’, is illustrative. Among its recommendations is that in the absence of great urgency, lawyers for would-be applicants for judicial review should seek access to the decision-making file under the OIA, the LGOIMA and/or the Privacy Act (page 257). Flagged too is the often-overlooked right to a statement of reasons of all decisions by any authority covered by the OIA or the LGOIMA (pages 263-264) – a pre-proceedings measure that can be particularly helpful to identify why a decision was made, especially in the absence of any or clear reasons for its making. Another feature of note is the stand-alone chapter the third edition contains on ‘The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990’ (chapter 16). As Graham Taylor recognises, NZBORA has a growing relevance to judicial review proceedings – indeed, its full potential as both a judicial review ‘sword’ and as a judicial review ‘shield’ is still to be realised (page 760). Among the possible applications of NZBORA in a judicial review setting are its use to interpret statutes in a rightsfriendly manner (pages 745-750), which is particularly relevant to the error of law and consideration of relevancies grounds of review; its use to read down empowering provisions as not authorising the making of NZBORA-inconsistent subordinate legislation (page 750), which is particularly

relevant to the ultra vires ground of review; and the potential for s27 NZBORA to expand the content of natural justice/procedural fairness obligations, and to open up new remedies for breaches these obligations (pages 752-759, 766-767). Back in 1980 Justice Holland said that “[t]here is probably no field of law in which development has occurred so fast in the last 30 years as that of administrative law” (Ng [1980] 2 NZLR 219, 222 (HC)). While the speed of development might have slowed, at least compared to the second half of the twentieth century, the law and practice of judicial review continues to evolve; marching to the beat of our living constitution. The third edition of Judicial Review: A New Zealand Perspective, with its statement of our law “as available on 20 December 2013” (Preface, xxxii), is likely to help us to march in time to the same beat. Judicial Review – A New Zealand Perspective, 3rd edition by Graham Taylor. LexisNexis NZ Ltd, 978-1-927227-80-0, May 2014, 785 pages, paperback and e-book, $167.00 (GST included, p&h excluded). Matthew Smith is a practising barrister at Thorndon Chambers in Wellington.

juniorPartner Practice Management Software you can Trust for Sole Practitioners & Small & Medium-sized firms Affordable Time Recording, Trust Accounting, Debtor Control Office Account, GST, Deeds, Marketing, NZLS Registers &c. For a free illustrated booklet or demo contact:

Client Care, Legal Aid Billing, Performance Reports (New) Internet Banking & Document Management (New) Record time on iPhone, Android, iPad etc with iPartner

jPartner Systems Ltd Ph: (09) 445 4476 Fax: (09) 445 4474

www.jpartner.co.nz enquiries@jpartner.co.nz

Visit our website for testimonials from ﬁrms just like yours. Easy to learn, easy to use Save time & increase proﬁts That’s what users say!

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

Courtroom Practice

Paperless jury trial – perhaps not yet By Craig Ruane The article by Nathan Speir (Paperless jury trial, LawTalk 821, 21 June 2013) about the paperless jury trial came at a time when I was preparing for a murder trial. I was intrigued by the article, and it gave me some confidence to go some way down the track. By way of background, my trial involved the murder of a Christchurch woman some five or six years ago. To that extent I suspect that the Police processes in dealing with documents electronically have moved on since the case began. The initial Police enquiries were extensive, to say the least. Large numbers of witnesses were interviewed. Many of them were habitués of what passes for an underworld in Christchurch, and were less than co-operative. At a relatively early stage Police attention focused on a local gang but, as is so often the case, the members of the gang and their associates did not think that they owed a civic duty to assist the Police. The end result was that before the accused was arrested the Police generated thousands of documents and took hundreds of photographs. Much of the material was irrelevant and could safely be ignored. Following the accused’s arrest, the Police began to make disclosure. It was at this point that it became clear the trial was going to be a very substantial one, and that some electronic assistance would be helpful. Initial disclosure was made by a variety of means. Some documents, such as photographs, were delivered in hard copy. Many documents were delivered electronically, but a significant proportion of those were simply scanned copies of handwritten jobsheets or the like. Many of the documents were in PDF format, having been converted from other file formats, generally DOCX. In the end I received something in the order of 20,000 documents of one form or another, although hundreds, and possibly thousands, were duplicates. Although it was possible to open and to view each individual electronic document,

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

the first problem I struck was an inability to search the content of the documents. Those documents that were simply scanned were not indexed in any meaningful way, and there was no meta data associated with them. All I received as counsel was a CD, accompanied by a schedule which identified a document number and a very brief description (if indeed there was a description) of the document. There was nothing in the material I was supplied with which provided any sort of easy means of indexing the documents. Initially I used a well-known document indexing programme, one which was in fact also used by the Police. This proved next to useless. It was obviously incapable of indexing those documents which had simply been scanned. I found it difficult, if not impossible, to use this particular piece of software to search those documents which had been created in DOCX format. Many of the PDF documents had been opened, redacted, and then improperly saved. The indexing software refused to index these particular documents and various error messages were produced. Faced with the prospect of having to individually open each document and to manually index it in some way, I initially made an application under the High Cost Case regime to the Ministry of Justice’s Legal Aid Service. I estimated that to deal with each document would take something between 30 seconds and 1 minute. I multiplied this by the number of documents I had, and asked for that amount of time by way of preparation. My application was rejected after being considered by a “specialist advisor”. Presumably the specialist advisor did not think it was necessary to view each individual document in a homicide trial to clarify its relevance, or perhaps thought I should be doing it much more quickly than estimated. In order to be able to index the PDF files which had been redacted by the Police, and after seeking some advice on a LinkedIn group, I bought a piece of indexing software called “Archivarius 3000”. Given that originated from somewhere east of what was the Iron Curtain I was a little hesitant about entrusting my credit card details to

the website, but all seems to have gone well. I am not yet funding an extravagant lifestyle in exotic destinations, and I have not been flooded with advertisements for male enhancement products or the opportunity to win millions of dollars in lotteries. Although I suspect that there are a number of other similar products this seems to do all that is required of it. It was relatively cheap (less than $100), relatively easy to use, and has the ability to deal with quite complex searches. Like the programme referred to by Mr Speir, Archivarius allows annotation of PDF documents and some degree of cross referencing by hyperlink. I spent some considerable time organising the documents I received by way of disclosure into a sensible directory structure. Strictly speaking, with good searching software, it would probably not be necessary to do this but it made it much easier to find groups of documents. In particular I put all briefs of evidence of those witnesses who were to be called at trial in a folder and images were similarly organised in a series of logically constructed folders. Fortunately the Police, when sending out what I thought was the last set of briefs of evidence, had helpfully put the file number of each brief on the document. This meant that it was easy to work backwards from the hard copy brief to the electronic document, and to associated documents. Unfortunately, at the very last minute, the Crown produced another updated set of briefs which did not have the reference number on the document. Given that quite a number of the witnesses gave evidence several times, it made it very hard to flick up the particular brief the witness was being led from at short notice. Unlike Mr Speir, I did not go to the expense of buying a new laptop but I am thinking seriously about doing so. The fact that I was legally aided was one reason for this decision. The real issue was that Microsoft does not make it easy to transfer your setup from one computer to another. If I am going to buy another computer I want to have something which looks and feels pretty much the same without having to reinstall every programme I have ever bought. To get a new computer, and to have to go through the process of learning to use it, was just

Courtroom Practice going to be too hard in the time available. As this was a new process, I adopted the belt and braces approach of having all of the important documents, (briefs of evidence, supporting statements and jobsheets) in an array of Eastlight binders in court, with electronic copies of those and all the other documents, on the laptop. That way, if things went horribly wrong, at least I had the backup of the hard copy. I was not prepared to go so far as Mr Speir and to abandon my paper notes entirely, particularly in closing, but I would be prepared to do next time with a touch screen. The ability to cut and paste from the transcript was very useful in closing (I was being emailed the transcript each evening, as well as receiving a hard copy in court during the day). It is not possible to go entirely paperless. Particularly when putting documents to a witness, the hard copy must be shown, and the jury also needs to have access to the document. In the absence of a fully electronic court there is going to be a lot of paper floating around.

• allowing plenty of time, well before trial,

screen is going to be more useful than a small touch screen. • Practice makes perfect. The middle of a long complex trial is not the time or place to learn how to use the software. There is a time burden involved in setting up the system, loading the data, indexing it, and

to say whichever system you choose, make sure you are familiar with the software and its foibles. There is probably more software available for Windows and the court, Crown, and Police seem to use Windows based systems. The merits of the system were largely as Mr Speir has said: • being able to access all documents from one source, quickly; • not having to transport large quantities of paper each day to and from chambers; • the ability to search large documents, and large numbers of documents, for words and phrases. On this point there needs to be a note of caution. The searching software is only as good as the data it is searching. Searching for “Smith” will probably not pick up “Smyth” “Smiff” or any of the other permutations a careless typing finger might generate; and • the ability to annotate documents on the fly, and to review the annotations later. The virtual highlighter is a great tool, particularly if you have access to a colour printer, and the ability to cross reference and hyperlink documents is helpful. As to hardware I think the comments I would make are: • A touch screen would be invaluable. • Size matters. A large detachable touch

generally fiddling about. The time burden may not be worth it for a half day fixture. On the other hand, if the disclosure material has already been provided electronically, a short fixture may well be an ideal opportunity to learn, knowing that if things go horribly wrong the hard copy folder is tucked away in your briefcase. These are no doubt all issues that civil litigators have come to grips with in large scale civil trials. Criminal lawyers tend to be a little more old fashioned. As a final thought, if you are going to go down the electronic route, don’t do it half-heartedly. Invest the time and money in hardware, software, and preparation and you may well find that you can spend more time focused on the issues and less time shuffling folders on your desk.

to organise the material you get from the Police/Crown so that if all else fails you can work your way through your directory structure and find what you need. I do not intend to enter into a debate about the benefits of Windows v Apple, other than

Lessons learned I am a reasonably proficient computer user, although do not pretend to be a touch typist. I am of a generation that spans the introduction of the PC, and I first learnt to programme using CANTRAN and BASIC. The first portable computer I used was a device called FACE, which only took eight beefy soldiers to lift into the back of a 3-ton Bedford truck. The things to be wary of, in going electronic, include: • ensuring that all documents are on the computer in a form which can be searched; • ensuring that the search index is up to date if your searching programme does not index “on the fly”; • ensuring that your computer is backed up at least daily; • ensuring that there is a reliable power supply in court and that you have access, by one means or another, to the internet. In my case I did not use my phone as a wireless hotspot, but it is an option. A better option would be for the Ministry of Justice, perhaps in conjunction with the New Zealand Law Society, to provide wireless access to counsel in court; • not getting bogged down in the technicalities of data entry and data manipulation. It is what the witness says and does in the witness box which will be noticed by the jury, not what you have up on your screen; and

Craig Ruane has practised in Christchurch since graduating from Canterbury University in 1978. He spent several years as a litigation partner in a large Christchurch firm, where his emphasis was criminal and civil advocacy. He joined the Crown Solicitor’s office as an associate and senior prosecutor in 1998. After nine years as prosecutor, which included time in East Timor prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity, he joined Riverlands Chambers as a barrister in 2007. LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

Law Foundation

Mooting contests develop ‘invaluable’ skills By Lynda Hagen, NZ Law Foundation Executive Director Law Foundation support for mooting has again helped New Zealand teams achieve excellent results at the world’s leading competitions. The Auckland University Law School team reached the last 32 in the world’s premier event, the Jessup Moot, held in April. Another Auckland Law School team reached the semi-finals of the prestigious Brown-Mosten International Client Consultation competition held in Puerto Rico in April. Law Foundation support will enable an Otago Law School team, David Benson-Pope and Tom Jemson, to contest the International Negotiation Competition in South Korea later this year. Additionally, the Foundation backs the national Family Law Moot competition, and we have recently teamed up with the Wellington Young Lawyers’ Committee and the NZ Bar Association to support the NZ Law Foundation YLC Mooting Competition for junior lawyers. This is to be an annual event, and we hope it will become a national event in the near future.

Jessup Moot The Jessup competition simulates a fictional dispute between countries before the International Court of Justice. This year’s dispute involved maritime issues including salvage rights, conservation, criminal jurisdiction and development. The competition is named after Philip Jessup, who once served on the ICJ, and is organised by the International Law Students’ Association. More than 670 law schools from over 80 countries take part in the competition, making it the largest moot in the world. Around 120 teams go through to the international rounds in Washington DC. The Auckland team - Nupur Upadhyay, Jeremy Wilson and Gretta Schumacher -together with non-travelling team member Tim Condor, won the right to represent New Zealand at the 2014 competition by winning the national Bell Gully Senior Mooting Competition. The team won four preliminary rounds in Washington before losing to a Chinese team. The winners were the University of Queensland.

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

New Zealand team co-coach Caroline Foster, of Auckland University, said the organisers were delighted with the team’s success, and very grateful to the Law Foundation for its ongoing support. “The Jessup takes them to a whole new level. They shift gear and become much more skilled at handling the intense pressure of being on their feet in real time, before highly qualified judges. It’s a wonderful thing to watch.” The New Zealand team was also assisted by co-coach Isaac Hikaka who travelled to Washington with the team, and by Mark Tushingham and Benedict Tompkins, members of another Auckland team that reached the Jessup semi-finals in 2012.

Brown-Mosten Client Consultation The Brown-Mosten requires students to interview a “client” and provide appropriate advice, armed initially with only a one-line brief and given 45 minutes to complete the task. “The focus is on procedural skills – putting clients at ease and explaining things clearly, as well as giving substantive advice,” says New Zealand’s National Representative for the competition, Selene Mize of Otago University. “This type of training is invaluable for students and their future clients. We are really letting our students down if we only teach them substantive information about the law, without training in practical skills.” This year’s team, Auckland University’s Luke Sizer and Andrew McLeod, narrowly lost to the Netherlands in the semi-final round. New Zealand has won the Brown-Mosten five times in the past 12 years, come second twice, come third twice and been a semifinalist twice. This record is much better than any other country’s. Only Ireland has won more than once, winning for the second time this year.

NZLF Young Lawyers Committee Mooting Competition Following the success of last year’s inaugural event, the Foundation is supporting the second Young Lawyers’ Committee Mooting

Competition organised by the Wellington Young Lawyers Committee, an arm of the New Zealand Law Society’s Wellington branch. The event involves 12 two-person teams contesting preliminary rounds before Supreme Court judges at the High Court. This year’s final will be on 19 June at the Old High Court, before the Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias, Justice Arnold and Justice Glazebrook. Members of the public are invited to be seated by 5pm. This competition will simulate an appellate court hearing giving young lawyers a rewarding and challenging opportunity to get valuable practical experience, both in terms of written and oral advocacy, before senior members of the profession. Monica Hamlyn-Crawshaw, of the Young Lawyers’ Committee, says the organisers hope to expand the Wellington event into a national competition. “Court advocacy is arguably one of the most difficult skills for young practitioners, and often the most difficult to get experience in.” She says the competition has been well supported by the profession, with experienced practitioners assigned to mentor each team taking part.

NZ Law Foundation support for mooting and negotiation contests Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Competition, Washington DC -$30,000 annually to cover travel for a four-person team and two coaches. Brown-Mosten International Client Consultation Competition -$15,000 annually to cover travel for a twoperson team and a coach. International Negotiating Competition -$15,000 annually to cover travel for a two-person team and a coach. New Zealand Law Foundation National Family Law Moot -$12,000 annually to cover all national teams’ travel and associated costs. New Zealand Law Foundation Young Lawyers Committee Mooting Competition - $2,395.

Lighter side of lawyering

Best least annoying barrister By Marcus Elliott It’s an exciting time to be a lawyer. Opportunities abound to receive the recognition you so richly deserve: the Chambers Asia Pacific Awards, the Who’s Who Legal Awards and the Legal 500 Asia Pacific to name only a few. NZ Lawyer recently published a “Hot List” featuring, “the 38 trailblazing lawyers changing the industry now”. Evidently these lawyers “sizzled” in late 2013 and early 2014. They are “the talk of the town”. These 38 victims of hyperbole are all excellent lawyers. It’s not their fault they were singled out by NZ Lawyer in this way. However, if you believe you should have been on the Hot List but were excluded (possibly because, applying the NZ Lawyer criteria, you fizzled rather than sizzled and/ or you’re the talk of the town but in a backstabbing, gossipy sort of way), you will have another chance at glory at the 2014 New Zealand Law awards. I take this opportunity to announce my candidacy for the title of Barrister of the Year at those awards. (I imagine that you will shortly receive an email bulletin from NZ Lawyer identifying this as ‘Breaking News.’) I acknowledge that the previous sentence could, if read in isolation, be described as conceited. I hope to prove that this is not the case. However, before doing so, I would like to point out that nominations for my award will open soon at www.nzlawyermagazine. co.nz. (When I say “my award”, I mean the award in my category, that is 2014 Barrister of the Year, which may or may not become mine, depending on how the voting goes. At this stage I do not want to presume too much. But between ourselves I think the award will be mine.) Turning now to the substantive justification for my candidacy. In 2011, I opened up an issue of NZ Lawyer magazine and discovered that my name was on the long list for Barrister of the Year. To this day I don’t know who nominated me or why. It remains a mystery. At the time I thought it was just a bad joke given that it was one of my worst years of practice, featuring a

succession of ignominious court experiences, not to mention [SUPPRESSED BY ORDER OF THE AUTHOR’S INSURER]. To top it all off, the office building in which I worked was entirely disassembled and taken away in pieces. But, when I saw my name on the list of nominees, I began to think that maybe my unknown nominator was right. Maybe I truly was the “Best Barrister in New Zealand”. This thought, which began as a sort of flutter in my heart, grew into a throb of certainty and I even contemplated adding the phrase to my letterhead. Then, when the next issue of NZ Lawyer came out, I discovered that the long list had been converted to a short list and my name had fallen off, like a broken paperclip from a poorly assembled bundle of authorities. And, just as I didn’t know why my name was on the long list, I didn’t know why it was not on the short list. Somebody was playing a cruel game with me. And where did this leave me? Since I had been on the long list I could legitimately say that I was at least the “Tenth Best Barrister of the Year”. But that wouldn’t look very good on my letterhead. In the following months – even years – of disillusionment which ensued, I came to wonder what it actually means to be the “Best Barrister in New Zealand”. Does it mean best at pointing out a case to the court which does not assist your case, resulting in a judgment against your own client? Best at persuading a judge to accept an argument which has no merit? Best at drafting a fifth further amended statement of claim? Best at acknowledging receipt of an email from opposing counsel telling you that your analysis of the law is fundamentally, even laughably, flawed? Or, what about best at satisfying my clients? Unfortunately, if I have worked day and night to get the best possible result for a client there are 10 more I have annoyed through my absence and inattention, not to mention my neglected family, friends and bank manager. So being a lawyer is just an exercise in choosing who you will annoy the least. A more appropriate award would be “Best Least Annoying Barrister”. Unfortunately, this category does not appear to be available at the 2014 NZ Lawyer

Awards. So I have decided to pursue a simple goal: to be the best barrister in New Zealand, whatever that means. And the best way to verify that I am the best barrister is to win the award for best barrister. And then to retain the title every year from now on until I retire. Having announced this to the whole profession, I find that a sense of calm has descended upon me and that I am ready to assume the responsibilities associated with holding the award for best barrister. And yet I still feel a little insecure. There may be a barrister out there who has done something for a client, some piece of excellent work, without any expectation of recognition, possibly without even being paid, something for which they will never be thanked. There may be a barrister who has, through some small, private act, left someone believing that lawyers are good people who mean well, despite what the media says. Or a barrister who quietly goes about their business day by day, sometimes succeeding and sometimes failing, but always doing their best. But how can I find these people so I can point out that I am a better barrister than them? Because they don’t want to be found. They don’t even want to be nominated for any awards! They have poisoned their chances of glory with humility. Humility is a barrier to the recognition of true greatness. I find their humility arrogant. These thoughts torture me and the only thing that gets me through is the knowledge that I will always hold the award for, and therefore will always be, the hottest, the most sizzling and the most talked about (in a good way) Barrister of the Year. Marcus Elliott is a barrister at Canterbury Chambers in Christchurch. He specialises in civil litigation and is also on the Christchurch Crown Prosecution Panel. He was counsel assisting the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. He is on the Council of the Bar Association and is a Standards Committee member. His writing can be found at www.marcuselliott.com. He also blogs at www.defectiveinvective.com. If pressed under oath he would be compelled to admit that he is Australian.

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

CPDcalendar Programme

Presenters

Content

Where

When

Using Human Rights Law in Litigation

Chair: Prof Paul Rishworth

It is becoming increasingly important to know how Human Rights can properly Wellington be used to influence the outcome of a case. This intensive will provide practical advice and guidance that will help the litigator to know when to play the Human Rights card and how to do so to best effect.

25 Jun

CIVIL LItIgatIon & EmPLoymEnt

6 CPD HRS

Expert Witness

Susan Hughes QC

This two-day day programme follows the same learning-by-doing methods that Wellington have proved so successful in both the annual basic level NZLS CLE Litigation Skills Programme and the advanced course. It is entirely focussed on working with expert witnesses and you will also receive mentoring from experienced faculty members. The course is designed for all litigators from civil, criminal, family and other specialist jurisdictions with at least five years’ experience.

26 - 27 Jun (Full)

Issues in Unjust Enrichment

Chair: Prof Peter Watts QC

Bringing you up to date with developments both here and abroad, this intensive Wellington takes stock of the law of restitution in New Zealand. Presenters will discuss Auckland key issues in unjust enrichment, how it affects obligations in contractual arrangements, including mistaken transfer, defences and restitution for wrongs.

23 Jul 24 Jul

District Court Procedures: Review and Reform

Andrew Beck His Hon Judge Gibson His Hon Judge Kellar David Neutze

The new District Court Rules come into force on 1 July 2014. In response to practitioner demand, the new rules have returned to a system of formal pleading, while retaining trial processes that are quite different from those in the High Court. It is also expected that the Judicature Modernisation Bill will substantially increase the monetary jurisdiction of the District Court, making the District Court the forum for commencement of the majority of civil claims. Attend this seminar and gain the necessary skills to understand District Court procedures and operate effectively in the new environment.

Introduction to High Court Civil Litigation Skills

Sandra Grant John Hardie His Hon Judge Joyce QC Nikki Pender Paul Radich Tom Weston QC

13.5 CPD HRS

5.5 CPD HRS

Dunedin Christchurch Wellington Hamilton Auckland

4 Aug 5 Aug 6 Aug 11 Aug 12 Aug

Webinar

6 Aug

2* CPD HRS

20 - 21 Oct This two-day workshop is an excellent opportunity for recently admitted practitioners Wellington to develop practical skills in civil litigation in an intense small-group workshop. Auckland 2 10 - 11 Nov Don’t miss this chance to ensure that you will be able to face a court case with Christchurch 24 - 25 Nov confidence! You will improve 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 9 CPD HRS range of other litigation files, competently and confidently.

ComPany, CommERCIaL & tax tax Conference

Chair: Joanne Hodge

This year’s conference programme covers a wide range of tax matters with a Auckland emphasis on identifying and meeting the technical and practical issues faced by advisers on a daily basis, delivered by an impressive line-up of speakers. Join us for what promises to be an interesting and educational day.

4 Sep

6.5 CPD HRS

CRImInaL the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act – five years in

Jacinda Foster Dr Heather McKenzie

The Act increased the powers of forfeiture where someone has benefited from Christchurch 21 Jul 22 Jul significant criminal activity. This seminar will examine key case law, emerging Wellington 23 Jul Auckland trends and reflect on what these mean in practical terms for practitioners. Webinar

Duty Lawyer training Programme

Local Presenters

Duty lawyers are critical to the smooth running of a District Court list. Here is a way Visiting to gain more of the knowledge and skills you need to join this important group. This centres workshop is made up of several parts. Visit www.lawyerseducation.co.nz for around NZ full course description, dates and locations.

22 Jul

3.5* CPD HRS

Feb - Nov

11* CPD HRS

FamILy mediation for Lawyers: Part B – Family Law

Virginia Goldblatt Denise Evans

For those with recent approved prior mediation training, including our Part A Wellington 2 22 - 24 Aug course. This programme will be an opportunity to practise mediation skills in Auckland 2 10 - 12 Oct the family law area and then to be assessed on them. Strictly limited numbers with pre-course work required. 15 CPD HRS

Understanding mediation – mediation for lawyers Part a

Virginia Goldblatt Geoff Sharp

Mediation knowledge and skills are an increasingly important adjunct to legal practice. Wellington Many more clients are taking disputes to mediation (because it works) and the more Auckland 2 that their legal advisers know about how it works the better. In addition, practice as a mediator extends the service that lawyers can offer the public.

25 - 27 Jul 31 Oct - 2 Nov

15 CPD HRS

Online registration and booklet purchases (with cheque, direct credit and credit card payment options) available at www.lawyerseducation.co.nz

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

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

Programme

Presenters

Content

Where

Scrutinising the actions of government

Chair: Government and private sector decision-makers have recently been Christchurch The Hon Justice Clifford challenged by unexpected and unpredictable major events in New Zealand. Wellington This intensive will examine how central and local Government have addressed the resultant range of complex public law issues, including the question of the third source of authority.

When

PUBLIC LaW 24 Sep 25 Sep

6 CPD HRS

PRoPERty & tRUStS Property Law Conference

Chair: John Greenwood

The ever-changing pace of property law places new demands on practitioners. Wellington We recommend you attend this year’s conference and take the opportunity to indulge yourself by up-skilling your knowledge. The programme will provide you with two days of stimulating engagement on topics of importance and interest concerning property law. Areas for discussion include: leases, ethics, developer’s expectations, property relationship agreements, health and safety reforms, unit titles, insurance, dispute resolution and much more.

23 - 24 Jun

12.5 CPD HRS

Residential Property transactions

Debra Dorrington Lauchie Griffin Nick Kerney Duncan Terris

This very popular two-day, limited-number workshop, for solicitors at the start Christchurch of their property law career and legal executives with some experience, follows Wellington Hamilton three files, from client instructions to settlement and beyond. Auckland

30 Jun - 1 Jul 28 - 29 Jul 28 - 29 Jul 11 - 12 Aug

Settlement and E-dealing – contentious issues

Niamh McMahon

Key issues emerging from contentious settlements in the e--dealing environment will be addressed in this webinar. Particular focus will be given to what it means to be “ready, able and willing” to settle, with practical strategies to address an unwilling purchaser in a default environment.

2 Jul

Stepping Up – foundation for practising on own account

Director: John Mackintosh

trust account Supervisor training Programme

Webinar

13 CPD HRS

1 CPD HRS

PRaCtICE & PRoFESSIonaL SkILLS

Financial markets Conduct act – an introduction

All lawyers wishing to practise on their own account, whether alone, in Auckland 2 partnership, in an incorporated practice or as a barrister, will be required to Wellington complete this course. (Note: From 1 October 2012 all lawyers applying to be Auckland 3 barristers sole are required to complete Stepping Up). Developed with the support of the New Zealand Law Foundation.

3 - 5 Jul 4 - 6 Sep 6 - 8 Nov

Jeremy Kennerley David Littlefair David Chapman Bob Eades Lindsay Lloyd

To qualify as a trust account supervisor, you must complete 40-55 hours’ Hamilton preparation, attend the assessment day and pass all assessments. Wellington Auckland 2 Christchurch

16 Jul 18 Sep 19 Nov 26 Nov

Liam Mason Jeremy Muir Mark Stuart

Join this practical and interactive seminar designed to provide a conversion course from the old Securities Act (and related legislation) to the new, radically different and all-encompassing Act. You will learn the concepts behind the new Act, understand the timetable for implementation, and recognise when the Act applies. For all general practitioners.

Dunedin Christchurch Wellington Auckland

9 Jun 10 Jun 17 Jun 18 Jun

Webinar

17 Jun

18.5 CPD HRS

8 CPD HRS

3.5* CPD HRS

Lawyer as negotiator Jane Chart

Building on your own experience, this one-and-a-half day workshop provides Wellington 2 hands-on practice and feedback, as well as a conceptual framework for preparing Auckland 2 for and undertaking negotiations. 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.

11 - 12 Nov 18 - 19 Nov

11.5 CPD HRS

RURaL LaW Rural Law - the big issues Intensive

Chair: Chris Spargo

This one-day intensive will present in-depth discussions on current issues Christchurch concerning rural practitioners, including an overview and analysis of irrigation Hamilton schemes and related resource consents, a Fonterra update, syndications, horticultural issues and death and wills in the rural context.

10 Sep 12 Sep

5.5 CPD HRS

*CPD HRS may vary – please see brochure on website

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. LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

In-House 4

1 2

5 1. At this year’s CLANZ Conference (from left) Cristina Billet, Mark Toner, Wendy Chen and Ed Timmins. 2. Conference MC James Elliott, as the Principal of the Back to School themed conference. 3. Richard Niven and Ann Brennan. 4. Kylie Campbell, Travey Conlon and Lucy Kebbell. 5. Ryan Ellis and Aaron Donaldson.

Your best tool is ‘influence’ In-house lawyers need to be reliable, be enablers for their organisation, and their best tool will be their ability to influence, delegates to the 27th annual CLANZ Conference learned. Held in Dunedin, the theme of the conference was Back to School. ANZ Group General Counsel Bob Santamaria, from Australia, spoke of his experience leading more than 200 lawyers throughout the ANZ Group and how his team works hard to develop relationships. Mr Santamaria described how he recently structured his initial 30 minute conversation with ANZ’s new Board Chair, Mr David Gonski, to highlight the key legal risks for the business and explain how his team was well placed to manage these risks. He urged younger lawyers to “be reliable”. This, he said, “is easy to say but much harder to deliver. Put your hand up for everything that comes your way and establish the trust of your internal clients”. Ministry of Business and Innovation and

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

Employment (MBIE) Chief Legal Advisor Ann Brennan said “we are in the business of enabling MBIE to achieve its objectives. We can only do that by understanding what those objectives are”. Ms Brennan said she has focused on establishing formal client relationship frameworks and building relationships across an organisation that is still coming together as one unit. “Your best tool is going to be influence,” executive consultant Emily Morrows told about 340 delegates at a session entitled Jungle Gym – building your influence. “Influencing is the ability to lead others outside your control so they make better decisions affecting you and your work.” She says an influencing approach when trying to get a team member or CEO to come to your way of thinking is much more effective than attempting to be authoritative. The disclosure of information to team members or employees is important for a job

well done, along with flexibility in how the job or task is carried out, and consistency in the way you interact with them. A Biology session looked at how an inhouse lawyer can become a trusted advisor rather than simply a service provider. Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) Chief Legal Advisor Bronwyn Arthur described the rapidly changing environment the CERA legal team of seven faced during the Christchurch Earthquakes. After the 22 February 2011 earthquake CERA was established on 29 March 2011 and the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act came into force on 18 April. On 13 June 2011 Christchurch suffered another swarm of aftershocks which shifted the in-house legal team from the suburbs into the Christchurch Art Gallery with the demolition team. Ms Arthur said having the opportunity to work with another team should be embraced to understand work done and personalities

involved. “It’s one of the best things that could have happened relationship wise,” providing her team with insights into the pressures others in CERA faced. Ms Arthur says the reality of being an in-house lawyer means things do go wrong and that external lawyers could be invaluable. “The only thing to do is accept that mistakes happen, try to learn from them and move on,” she says. Xero General Counsel and Company Secretary Matt Vaughan shared his views

through the lens of life as a lawyer in a fast-growing tech start-up. He challenged all lawyers in the audience to maximise the use of technology in their practice, citing Google Drive to enable better collaboration and using project management software. Meridian Energy General Counsel and Company Secretary Jason Stein said knowing all facets of the business that impact on decision-making creates a trusted advisor, along with spending time on developing self-awareness outside technical legal skills. “It is absolutely impossible to fulfil your

potential with others without knowing your own style, preference and way of operating.” He says the characteristics of a trusted advisor are someone who is humanistic, encouraging and self-aware. Having a perpetual work ethic “is not a measure of whether you’re a trusted advisor or not,” he says, as having good experiences outside of work is crucial to self-development. “A good work-life balance feeds into your own quality of life and enhances your ability to give good advice.”

Lawyers Complaints Service

Former Police prosecutor struck off Former Police prosecutor Timothy John Russell Sarah has been struck off following his conviction on four drugs charges and a charge of dishonestly accessing the Police computer system. In [2014] NZLCDT 26, Mr Sarah faced a charge before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal that his conviction for an imprisonable offence reflected on his fitness to practise or tended to bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Sarah did not respond to the disciplinary charge, although his counsel at his sentencing in the High Court accepted on his behalf that strike-off was inevitable. In the High Court at Auckland on 6 March 2013, Mr Sarah pleaded guilty to and was convicted of: • t h r e e c h a r g e s o f s u p p l y i n g methamphetamine; • one charge of possessing methamphetamine; and • one charge of dishonestly accessing the Police National Intelligence computer system and obtaining confidential information. Justice Toogood sentenced him on 3 May 2013 to four years’ imprisonment. Mr Sarah’s appeal on sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in September 2013. Justice Toogood described the dishonest accessing of the Police computer system as the lead offence. This was also, for the tribunal, the most important one “because it involves such a gross breach of trust in a privileged position as a Police prosecutor,” the tribunal said. “That is not to minimise the very serious convictions for dealing in methamphetamine

which aggravated the lead offence considerably. “But the actions of the practitioner in warning drug associates using information obtained from the Police computer database, which was accessed over 80 times, is of enormous concern in any practitioner, who is bound in terms of s4 obligations under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act [2006] to uphold the rule of law and the administration of justice.” The tribunal noted that Justice Toogood described Mr Sarah’s offending as “deliberate and calculated”. “He went on to describe how the practitioner’s offending seriously undermines public confidence in law enforcement, which, we note, in a modern world involves the collection of data about citizens on the basis that those charged with its collection and storage will observe the highest standards of integrity and know that the information will be used only for legitimate purposes. The tribunal also noted that Justice Toogood had said: “There is no doubt that selling illicit drugs during your lunch break while carrying the important responsibility of prosecuting others for the same thing is breathtaking in its hypocrisy and cynicism”. “Justice Toogood found that the crimes were more reprehensible because Mr Sarah was a lawyer and employed by the Police and further that he brought both professions into disrepute by his actions,” the tribunal said. The tribunal took account of mitigating features, which had also been raised at the time of sentence. “We note that it was accepted that his drug habit had developed apparently as a consequence of post

traumatic stress disorder which followed an ugly and disturbing incident involving Mr Sarah in which he was an innocent bystander. “We also note that he has taken steps to deal with his addiction and had engaged, at the time of sentence, in counselling on an ongoing basis. No doubt this will have been interrupted by his sentence of imprisonment but one hopes that on release he would resume supportive measures necessary to ensure that he does not once again succumb to an addiction,” the tribunal said. As well as striking Mr Sarah off, the tribunal ordered him to pay the Law Society tribunal costs of $1,610 and Law Society costs of $2,641.

Interim suspension The NZ Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal issued an interim suspension order against Miriam Hollins of Auckland on 22 May 2014, pursuant to s245 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The interim suspension order was made because, in the tribunal’s view, there was an immediate need for protection of the public and other practitioners. This suspension is an interim measure, and further proceedings to determine whether the allegations are proved are still to be heard. The attorney for Ms Hollins is Susan Mary Stodart. LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

WI L L S

HORACE ROLAND LAX AND EDITH JULIE LAX Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 70 Carlisle Road, Browns Bay, North Shore City, born on 22 September 1921 and 2 May 1923 (respectively), who died on 23 July 2011 and 7 March 2014 (respectively), please contact Christine Greer:

DUNC AN EDWARD COLE Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Auckland, who died on 21 May 2014, please contact Sue Stodart Law: sue@stodartlaw.co.nz | Ph 09 477 6212 | Fax 09 476 8213 PO Box 302-690, North Harbour, Auckland 0751

chrissyhavachat@hotmail.com | Ph 027 447 3611 | Fax 09 473 9832

JAMES EDWARD MAURICE BE ALE

VIRGINIA ANN MIHAKA

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, formerly of 19 Andrew Street, Waikanae, Wellington, but recently of Millvale Lodge, 91 Main Road North, Paraparaumu, Wellington, please contact Lesley Figgess, Public Trust:

24 Fitzwilliam Drive, Torbay, North Shore City 0630

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 1061 Ngapipito Road, Moerewa, Northland, who died on or about 7 December 2011, please contact Sally McLeod, Thomson Wilson, Barristers & Solicitors: sam@thomsonwilson.co.nz | Ph 09 430 4380 | Fax 09 438 9473 PO Box 1042, Whangarei 0140

RONA FLORENCE HOOKER Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 740 State Highway 1, Puwera, Whangarei, who died on or about 23 May 2013, please contact Sally McLeod, Thomson Wilson, Barristers & Solicitors: sam@thomsonwilson.co.nz | Ph 09 430 4380 | Fax 09 438 9473 PO Box 1042, Whangarei 0140

N G A I R E LY N N S Y N N O T T Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 17 Tortola Crescent, Grenada Village, Johnsonville, Wellington, who died between 23-28 May 2014, please contact Jillene Peters, Harkness Henry: jillene.peters@harkness.co.nz | Ph 07 834 6672 | Fax 07 839 4043 Private Bag 3077, Hamilton 3240 | DX GP20015

M AT E K A I N G A P E A K M A N Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 794 Te Aute Road, Paki Paki, Hastings, who died on 9 January 2011, please contact David MacCallum of Baker MacCallum:

Lesley.Figgess@publictrust.co.nz | Ph 04 978 4911 | Fax 04 978 4930 PO Box 31543, Lower Hutt 5040 | DX RP42041

PAT R I C I A LO R R A I N E LOW L E S Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Fairview Village, 21 Fairview Avenue, Albany, Auckland, NZ, Retired, born on 15 July 1928, who died on 3 January 2014, please contact Lorraine Shutt: LorraineShutt@aol.com | Ph +44 15152 18448 35 Southfield Road, Orrell Park, Liverpool L9 8AU, England

JACK TUPORO Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Auckland, who died on 21 April 2014, please contact Adele Carter, Chris Rejthar & Associates, Tauranga: adele@rejtharlaw.co.nz | Ph 07 577 6565 | Fax 07 577 6202 PO Box 13033, Tauranga 3141

R O B E RT WAY N E B A R RY Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of Flat 2/68 Great South Road, Papakura, born on 28 August 1957, please contact Michael Talbot, Talbot Law Limited: michael@talbotlaw.co.nz | Ph 07 858 3371 | Fax 07 858 4347 PO Box 24232, Abels, Hamilton 3253

david@bakermac.co.nz | Ph 06 877 8024 | Fax 06 877 8022 PO Box 8510, Havelock North 4157

T E P UAWA I TA N G A B LO SS O M R A M E K A Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named nee Heteraki, late of 59 Kitemoana Street, Orakei, Auckland, born on 22 December 1933, who died on 1 October 2013 aged 79 years , please contact Jane Goulding, Daniel Overton & Goulding: jane@doglaw.co.nz | Ph 09 622 2222 | Fax 09 622 2555 | DX EP71005 PO Box 13017, Onehunga, Auckland 1643

R E G I ST RY ADMISS IO N Under Part 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

ANDREA JUNE LANGMAN Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, formerly of Rotorua, who died on 4 April 2014 in Dunedin, please contact Downie Stewart:

Anderson Patrick John Davis Renata Brian McNeilly Kylie Elen More Rosamund Theresa Nicholas Kathryn Laura

Painter Louise Erica Claire Pama San Pedro Henry Unsworth Stephanie Morag Wynne Nicola

christine@downiestewart.co.nz | Ph 03 477 2262 | Fax 03 477 4021 PO Box 1345, Dunedin 9054

APPROVAL TO PRACT IS E O N

BARRY JOHN WILSON

Under s30 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 52 Mataroa Road, Taihape, builder, born on 18 September 1946, who died on 25 October 2013, please contact Kim Turnbull, Treadwell Gordon Solicitors: Kim@treadgord.co.nz | Ph 06 388 0612 | Fax 06 388 1769 PO Box 23, Taihape 4742

ROBERT EDWARD K AKE Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, late of 5 Braebank Lane, Te Atatu South, who died on 9 May 2014 at Auckland, please contact Teei & Associates Lawyers: info@teeilaw.com | Ph 09 837 3207 | Fax 09 837 3259 PO Box 21-247, Henderson, Auckland 0650

HAMISH REES ALLAN Would any lawyer holding a will for the above-named, who died on or about 11 May 2013 at Taihape, please contact Ed Hunt Lawyer: ed@edhunt.co.nz | Ph 06 868 8740 | Fax 06 868 8774 PO Box 555, Gisborne 4040

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

OWN ACCO UNT Choi You Jin (Eugenie) Cogan Simon Liam Forsyth Janice Maree Henry Elizabeth Janet Kayes Gareth Richard Millar Julie Lyn (née Olds) Munro Simon David

Overend Karen Elizabeth (formerly Dwyer) Robson Nicola Margaret Robson Segaran Sanjay Ari (Ari) Sullivan Victoria Tracey Jennifer Zhang Chun (Peter)

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 26 June 2014. Any submissions should be given on the understanding that they may be disclosed to the candidate. 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/for-lawyers/ law-society-registry/applications-for-approval.

LI SA ATTRI LL, REGI STRY MANAGER lisa.attrill@lawsociety.org.nz 04 463 2916 0800 22 30 30, 04 463 2989

Letters to the Editor

Striking photo We noted the article “Richmond Chambers launched” in LawTalk 842 on 23

May 2014 and the striking photo of the all male line-up. We couldn’t help wondering where the female members of chambers were hiding the day the photographer came round? Perhaps our male colleagues should take a tip from the Flight of the Concords song (http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=EeOomugrc1w) entitled “Too

Coming up...

LAWASIA Conference The 27th LAWASIA Conference will be held in Bangkok from 3 to 6 October. See http://lawasia.asn.au/LAWASIA2014.

Yours in diversity Rachael Dewar, Karen Feint, Georgina Rood and Sophie Klinger of Wellington

SOLICITOR COMMERCIAL & PROPERTY

Criminology congress The 17th World Congress of Criminology will be held in Monterrey, Mexico, from 10 to 13 August. Organised by the International Society for Criminology, the congress has the theme Gangs, Trafficking and Insecurity: Empowering the Community. See http://criminology2014.com.

many d***s on the dance floor” and make some more “lady space” for women in the profession.

• • • •

Do you want to work directly with partners who are experts in their fields? Are you ambitious and want to be challenged? Do you want to be involved in driving your clients’ businesses forward? Do you want to work with a great team?

We need a lawyer with 2-3 years PQE to join our busy Auckland CBD team. AlexanderDorrington is a boutique CBD firm specialising in commercial and property law. We genuinely care about our staff, we are passionate about our work, we work hard but we also enjoy life outside the office. To find out more see www.alexanderdorrington.co.nz

Arbitration training The International Bar Association’s Asia Pacific Arbitration Group Training Day will be held in Tokyo on 12 September. This conference, presented by the IBA Asia Pacific Arbitration Group, will have the theme Best Practices in International Arbitration. See www.ibanet.org/Conferences/conferences_home.aspx.

ABA seasonal meeting The American Bar Association (ABA) 2014 Fall Meeting will be held in Buenos Aires from 21 to 25 October. This will be the first ABA seasonal meeting in the southern hemisphere and it is shaping up to be one of the best. See www. americanbar.org/groups/international_law.html.

Changing your LawTalk delivery address If you want to change the address that your copy of LawTalk is sent to, you need to contact the New Zealand Law Society Registry. The LawTalk address labels are generated from the Registry database. If you change your address with Registry, it automatically changes your LawTalk delivery address. There is a form on the Law Society website to do this. It is at www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-lawyers/change-your-details. You can contact Registry at registry@lawsociety.org.nz.

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

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

LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014 ·

P R O S E C U TO R TO A S S I S T C R O W N S O L I C I TO R The Crown Solicitor at Whangarei has a vacancy for an intermediate/senior prosecutor. This presents an opportunity to participate in the conduct of criminal prosecutions in the Northland District Courts as well as in the Whangarei High Court. Other work within the firm’s litigation practice is also envisaged. Applicants should have a minimum of 4 years post admission experience. This position allows for a lifestyle choice of sun, surf, sand and the great outdoors, without losing the opportunity to be involved with the quality and variety of work found in larger cities. Applications will be dealt with in confidence and should be forwarded along with a current CV, no later than 21 July 2014, to: Email: neilb@mwis.co.nz The Practice Manager Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith P O Box 146 WHANGAREI

Your legal search and recruitment partner

· LawTalk 844 · 20 June 2014

Your legal search and recruitment partner 021 611 416 / www.jlrnz.com

021 611 416 / www.jlrnz.com