LawNews- Issue 25

NEWS Jul 29, 2022 Issue 25

Inside ■ TRUSTS

Challenging trustee decisions P06

■ OPINION

The ‘I can’t look’ 2023 election P08-09

Regulating AI-generated

LEGAL ADVICE adls.org.nz

Contents 03-05 REGULATION AI ADVICE

Regulating legal advice as AI seeps into New Zealand law

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

06 POWERS TRUSTEES DISCRETION

How to challenge a trustee’s decision

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

11 EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE ENERGY

How not to fix climate change

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

10 EVENTS

12-13

Photo: PM Images / Getty Images

FEATURED CPD

14 CPD IN BRIEF

Write for LawNews LawNews welcomes commentary and opinion pieces on the NZLS discussion document on the regulatory and future structure of the profession.

Please contact the editor to discuss your contribution to the debate.

Submissions close 12 August.

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

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

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

Cover: baona/ Getty Images

02

Jul 29, 2022 Issue 25

TECHNOLOGY

Regulating artificial intelligence that thinks like a lawyer

While the horse has bolted on the regulation of technology, it has not bolted on whether the companies running it should be pulled into legal advice regulation under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act

While fewer juniors will be needed, equally fewer judges will be needed

Diana Clement

Photo: Yuichiro Chino / Getty Images

Should bots providing legal services be regulated in the same way as lawyers who give regulated legal advice?

The question is being pondered by members of the ADLS Technology & Law committee and the issue of legal services driven by artificial intelligence (AI) will be a key part of a submission the committee is preparing for the independent panel reviewing the regulation and structure of the legal profession.

It’s an important issue because AI is already seeping into day-to-day law in New Zealand, says committee member Arran Hunt.

The technology is already replacing juniors by stealth, though some lawyers are failing to see the writing on the wall.

Hunt, a partner at Stace Hammond, cites an arbitration his firm was involved in where other lawyers complained that his bundle of documents was too thin.

“We pointed out that they [had] the same document 10 times,” Hunt says. He knew this because a Stace Hammond junior had entered all the documentation for the arbitration into LawFlow, which was intelligent enough to identify duplicates, as well as carrying out other tasks such as tagging privileged information.

In this instance, LawFlow identified that the same document was attached to multiple emails that had gone back and forth between the parties. “[With LawFlow], we’re providing one document rather than the same document 10 times,” Hunt says. “Then you hit a button and it creates all the documentation required for court in the New Zealand court formatting standards.”

Likewise, practice management software such as Actionstep is

Continued on page 04 03

Continued from page 03

starting to use AI and automation.

The software’s document automation pulls live legal data into preconfigured templates, with Smart Logic allowing conditional addition/removal of text blocks.

Regulating technology At its most recent meeting, the ADLS committee discussed the regulation of legal advice and reserved areas of work, and how technology may already fall into these categories.

There is no way technology that falls into that category could be banned, says committee convenor Lloyd Gallagher. But the New Zealand Law Society needs to consider technology and its role in providing advice.

“While the horse has bolted on the regulation of technology, so to

by non-lawyers who do not represent themselves to be lawyers. An example is employment law advocates. Legal advice in non-reserved areas provided

by AI could be viewed similarly.

“AI technology, being simple database-result AI, and possibly full AI as it develops in the future, should be pulled into the ambit, with the owner being the responsible party for advice,” Gallagher says.

Partners would monitor the AI technology in the same way they monitor human lawyers.

AI will eventually be capable of giving legal advice rather than just writing contracts. Hunt cites the DALL·E 2 AI project as an example of just how far AI is advancing. DALL·E 2 uses AI to recreate an image of the Mona Lisa with a body in the style of Leonardo da Vinci. Although this has nothing to do with the law, the point, Hunt says, is the growing intelligence of AI technology.

If non-lawyers are running AI legal systems and remain free from review, the risk to consumers increases while leaving unregulated firms and traders unchecked

speak, it has not bolted on whether the companies running it should be pulled into legal advice regulation under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act,” Gallagher says.

“The review into the Act gives a unique opportunity to ask [whether] regulation should include providers that fall into areas that are considered to be providing legal services, which often entails legal advice. In my opinion, and that of others on the committee, it should.”

Some legal work is already done 04

He is in no doubt that AI has now surpassed the “Turing Test”, a test of a machine’s ability to demonstrate intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.

At this point, AI can understand things.

Reserved work The question then arises as to whether AI itself should also be included in the definition of regulated services if advice is being given and if so, what that should look like, Gallagher says.

“Certainly, at this time anyway, AI

cannot provide reserved areas of work as it cannot yet make an argument. But it will be there one day.

“AI can currently provide legal advice in other areas of the law as has been seen with simple contracts and some rules, as code technology is being developed in Australia. Is it appropriate to run unchecked when consumers carry the ultimate risk?

What happens if it is programmed wrong and gives bad advice? Who is the responsible person if it does? How can the industry be seen to be maintaining a high standard of professional services if AI remains unregulated? And finally, how are we protected from a provider that may not fully understand the law or base the advice on international rules?

“If non-lawyers are running AI legal systems and remain free from review, the risk to consumers increases while leaving unregulated firms and traders unchecked.

“Ultimately, someone is controlling that technology so there must be some review to keep it safe. Computers would be practising and someone will be controlling that technology. There’s a whole range of complexities in there,” Gallagher says.

“The committee’s position is how best we can balance this in the marketplace for practising lawyers as well as technology systems while protecting consumers. And how can we put this before the review panel to explain the issues and point them to some questions to which they might find some solutions or answers?

“With the complexities in this area, there’s no one solution that is going to fit everything. So, how do we balance that in the regulation to maintain quality of service without punishing lawyers in

Continued on page 05

Arran Hunt

Lloyd Gallagher

Alex Sims

There are already examples of bots providing legal advice and some of it going horribly wrong

Jul 29, 2022 Issue 25

AI has now surpassed the ‘Turing Test’, a test of a machine’s ability to demonstrate intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human Photo: sorbetto / Getty Images

Continued from page 04 a free, open market?”

Consumers need to be protected, Gallagher says, but that needs to be balanced with maintaining a competitive marketplace and not placing unreasonable burdens on lawyers to pay fees that unregulated parties don’t face for that same advice.

“Right now, there’s nothing stopping you from starting up a company and doing it. And that puts the consumer at risk because we don’t know whether you are following appropriate rules and practice standards, asking the right questions, providing good advice or even whether that advice is from an international legal perspective, which doesn’t apply in New Zealand.”

There are already examples of bots providing legal advice and some of it going horribly wrong, he says.

Patch protection?

Auckland University associate professor Alex Sims says she does not see an argument in favour of expanding lawyers’ powers to prevent non-practising lawyers and/or AI from providing advice.

“If it was expanded, that would reduce access to justice,” says Sims, a blockchain researcher, academic and futurist. “This looks very much like patch protection from lawyers, dressed

up as concern for consumers.”

If, however, AI was providing regulated services as things currently stand, then there should be a level playing field, she says, with a responsible person liable for that advice.

Gallagher’s personal opinion is that the practising certificate has passed its use-by date. “I think it is creating a burden on solicitors with a high cost for practising areas, which is unnecessary,” he says.

The committee discussed creating a separate role for membership and an oversight system for practising and non-practicsng lawyers and legal services such as AI. With such a system, complaints could be made and investigations carried out against anyone acting in a legal services position.

“This creates a level of balance that brings AI and computer-related systems underneath that umbrella and creates that consumer protection without burdensome requirements on lawyers and non-lawyers that would effectively destroy the competitive side of the market,” Gallagher says.

He suggests AI services provided by non-lawyers be pulled into a membership database and regulated.

“What that means is that you, as the business owner, say ‘well hang on a minute, I need to make sure that I have someone on staff or I have the requisite knowledge to make sure that

my technology is performing according to the standards that are supposed to be upheld’.”

Gallagher cites Canada and the UK as examples for New Zealand to consider.

“Canada, while they haven’t gone down the AI or computer path, is already in a position where it pulls legal service providers such as arbitrators, mediators etc into the requirement to be included in a membership (organisation).” That ensures complaints can be heard.

Here in New Zealand, that might be resurrecting the role of regional law societies as the membership bodies, with the New Zealand Law Society being the regulator.

“If that was the case in New Zealand, fees could be apportioned based on qualifications and whether the person or technology was practising in reserved areas of work or not. That would bring back that regulation balance, which is out of balance now,” Gallagher says.

Disintermediation Increasingly, forms of AI will begin to disintermediate larger full-service firms, Sims says. But some lawyers are asleep at the wheel.

Small companies offering specialised services using technology will inevitably spring up, eating the lunches of larger firms using the partnership model. They’re fighting a

rearguard battle, she says.

It’s similar to large banks that find they’re being disintermediated by small start-ups such as online bank Revolut in the UK, or the buy-now, pay-later companies that are eating into consumer lending in New Zealand.

“Yes, law is still needed as a profession,” Sims says. “But we won’t need as many people to do it. We have seen the same thing in other professions.”

The partnership model is particularly problematic for law firms that need to invest in technology to keep pace with the changes, she says. While some are managing to hold it off, it’s only a matter of time for the small trickle of technology to turn into a flood.

AI doesn’t discriminate about where in the legal industry it might hit. While fewer juniors will be needed, equally fewer judges will be needed.

The professional can’t always see this. Sims cites author Richard Susskind, who writes and speaks about the future of justice, and has had lawyers and other professionals comment after his talks that while they understand how AI is eating into other professions’ work, they can’t see it will affect their’s.

“People come down afterwards and say, ‘yes, yes, yes, AI is going to change that profession, but not mine.

I’m special. Everyone else can see it, but not the people themselves.” ■

05

TRUST LAW

The test for challenging a trustee’s decision They should avoid being caught with a trust deed which may expose them to a court deciding that they failed to take a relevant factor into account in their decisionmaking.

Anthony Grant Assume that a trust deed gives trustees “an absolute and uncontrolled discretion” to make decisions. To what extent can a court investigate a decision and set it aside?

This is a question Emeritus Professor Peter Watts has asked in an article entitled Trustees with Absolute Discretions – a Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in the New Zealand Courts, published recently in the journal Trust Law International.

Watts says the Supreme Court in Clayton [2016] NZSC 29 and the Privy Council in the Webb case [2020] UKPC 22 gave effect to the “absolute” nature of the powers.

He contrasts these decisions with two High Court cases where the courts took an opposite approach.

One is Clement v Lucas [2016] NZHC 29 where trustees were authorised to “exercise all [their] powers and discretions…in [their] absolute and uncontrolled discretion”.

A decision of the trustees to make a co-equal distribution to the settlors’ children was challenged and set aside. The clause giving them an absolute discretion was not referenced in the judge’s reasons for reaching this conclusion. A partial explanation for this was the apparent agreement of opposing senior counsel that the test the court should apply was whether the trustees had taken into account all relevant factors and excluded all irrelevant factors when they reached their decision.

That test is a licence to unsettle trustee decisions as in many cases it will be possible to identify a factor that ought to have been considered but which wasn’t. It adopts a Wednesbury approach to trustee decision-making which should make all trustees want to take out extensive liability insurance.

Watts is critical of the use of the relevant/irrelevant factor test in the context of a clause which authorises the use of an absolute and uncontrolled discretion.

The second case on which he focuses is Pinney v Cooper [2020] NZHC 1178. This was also a case with an “absolute and 06

Anthony Grant

That test is a licence to unsettle trustee decisions as in many cases it will be possible to identify a factor that ought to have been considered but which wasn’t

uncontrolled” discretion clause.

The judge more or less dismissed it, saying “I do not read the words ‘absolute and uncontrolled discretion’ as limiting Mr Pinney’s fiduciary duties in any meaningful way. He was still required to act in good faith, for a proper purpose, rationally and for good reason.”

If this decision is correct there is little point in having an “absolute and uncontrolled discretion” clause.

Watts says in cases where there is an “absolute and uncontrolled discretion” clause, a better test to adopt is whether a decision of trustees would be “anathema” to the settlor.

There is statutory justification for this approach. Both ss 4(a) and 21 of the Trusts Act 2019 say a trust must be administered in accordance with its “objectives”.

If, notwithstanding an authorisation to act with an “absolute and uncontrolled discretion”, a decision would be anathema to a settlor (because it was in fundamental conflict with his or her objectives for the trust), it can be assumed he or she would not have intended that the “absolute and uncontrolled” clause would permit the decision.

Do ss 4(a) and 21 of the Trusts Act prevail over an “absolute and uncontrolled discretion” clause? I think it likely that the courts will say they do. Trusts are not created by accident. Each is the result of a deliberate decision and there is merit in the courts trying to give supremacy to what they consider a settlor’s objectives to be.

What should trustees do about this? They should avoid being caught with a trust deed which may expose them to a court deciding that they failed to take a relevant factor into account in their decision-making.

Including a clause which authorises them to make decisions in their “absolute and uncontrolled” discretion should help to achieve this. ■ Anthony Grant is an Auckland barrister specialising in trusts and estates ■

Jul 29, 2022 Issue 25

Letter to the editor More anger and concern about Gardner-Hopkins decision I am astounded at the High Court decision in relation to the GardnerHopkins appeal and write following an excellent article by Ana Lenard in last week’s LawNews.

The Standards Committee involved sought a strike-off by the tribunal because it considered the offences and actions of James Gardner-Hopkins to be so bad. We all should know what he did by now.

When there was only a two-year suspension imposed by the tribunal, the New Zealand Law Society appealed the decision on behalf of the Standards Committee (I was on such a Standards Committee for nine years and convener for four of those years) and sought a strike-off. However, the High Court has decided that an extra year’s suspension is all that is required so it is now a three-year suspension.

What a joke! How is that? What a terrible message to send to young lawyers, or in fact anyone, about sexual misconduct in the workplace by people in power and with influence. For those who have not seen the film The Firm starring Tom Cruise, you should view it, as that tested the ethics and strength of a young lawyer. In that case, sex was not involved

but instead the mafia which was a major client of the firm.

As a senior practitioner admitted nearly 46 years ago, still loving the law, and a father of two daughters and two sons plus many grandchildren, I am very worried by the message sent to the profession by the High Court.

I have employed many young lawyers over the years and many were outstanding, trusting, but some need guidance and protection. To have someone older, in a position of power and with influence like GardnerHopkins who displayed such bad and unacceptable behaviour to younger people – all ladies – or in fact to any members of the legal profession, and being able to continue to practise as a lawyer after three years, subject to approval at that time, is so wrong and sends the worst possible message. I my opinion, he is not a fit and proper person to practise law, now or forever.

Doctors and dentists doing similar things have been struck-off and prohibited from continuing in practice. Why are lawyers like GardnerHopkins not being treated in the same way? ■ Stewart Germann CFE Partner SGL

ADLS committee membership applications now open for 2022-2024 ADLS invites you to apply now for a seat on one of our committees and become a part of the legal profession’s proud history of giving back to the law.

ADLS committees ■ AML/CFT ■ Continuing Professional Development ■ Criminal Law ■ Documents & Precedents ■ Employment Law ■ Environment & Resource Management Law ■ Family Law ■ Health & Safety Law

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Immigration & Refugee Law Members Special Fund Mental Health and Disability Newly Suited Parole Property Disputes Property Law Technology & Law

Click to find out more 07

Photo: Phil Walter / Staff / Getty Images

Chris Trotter

POLITICS/OPINION

The ‘I can’t wait’ or the ‘I can’t look’ 2023 election?

In Dunedin, on 14 July 1984, it snowed. One of those raw southern days when the wind blows straight from the pole, election day 1984 arrived with the sort of weather most elderly people could have been forgiven for avoiding. But bundled up against the cold, I found myself trudging up Carroll Street behind a very old woman. Bent against the wind, with snow in her hair, she put one foot in front of the other, using her walking stick to push her frail body up the hill toward the polling booth. As I overtook her, I paused and asked if I she needed any help. “No thank you, dear,” she smiled, “I can get rid of that bastard Muldoon all on my own.”

The snap election of 1984 was one of those rare political moments when an overwhelming majority of the population was united in its determination to get rid of the incumbent government.

Taken together, the vote against “that bastard Muldoon” amounted to 64.44%. Muldoon’s National Party secured barely more than a third of the votes cast. Significantly, his defeat was achieved on a turnout of 93.7% – the highest in New Zealand’s political history.

For many New Zealanders, the pending general election, now just 15 months away, is beginning to acquire an aura of inevitability not dissimilar to the “Goodbye Pork Pie!” election of 1984. Certainly there is plentiful evidence of antipathy for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, every bit as strong as that directed at ‘Piggy’ Muldoon. Although, given the effort required to communicate one’s feelings in the Twitter-less eighties, the population’s dissatisfaction with him may have been even greater.

An important aspect of the “Muldoon Out!” election was the widespread feeling that things simply couldn’t go on as they were – that the status quo simply wasn’t working.

This feeling was articulated most devastatingly by academic, bank and business economists, and the journalists who reported them. It was, however, not restricted exclusively to the purveyors of elite opinion.

Muldoon’s price and wage freeze had also alienated huge swathes of the unionised working class. Throw into the mix the tens of thousands of jobless New Zealanders, then organised into the most radical unemployed workers’ movement since the 1930s, and the social tsunami rising against Muldoon was truly huge.

Can the same be said of New Zealand’s political environment in 2022? Can we discern, today, the growth of a broad, cross-class, anti-incumbent movement similar to the one that was so evidently gathering force across New Zealand between 1982 and 1984?

Looking at the latest public opinion polls, the answer would seem to be no. If anything, the two great political blocs – National/Act and Labour/Green/Māori Party – are evenly matched, each accounting for roughly half the parliamentary seats.

Popular dissatisfaction?

Pollsters are certainly not reporting a decisive collapse in support for the incumbent government, merely a restoration of the electoral balance that existed before the extraordinary election of 2020 when, between them, the components of the incumbent three-party coalition government attracted the support of 60.47% of the electorate.

Nor is it the case that the economic and cultural elites of

Continued on page 09 08

Jul 29, 2022 Issue 25

Photo: Fairfax Media Archives / Getty Images

Continued from page 08

Sir Robert Muldoon

After 1984, as the process of “invisiblising” them gathered pace, the poor increasingly abandoned active citizenship. Few of them now remember that those who do not vote, do not count

2022 are marching in lock-step with angry columns of unionised workers and beneficiaries towards a fatal day of reckoning with the incumbent government.

Indeed, the opposite is true. With the notable exception of the business elites, the rest of the New Zealand Establishment is strongly supportive of Jacinda Ardern’s government and its policies of cultural and constitutional transformation.

The judiciary, the public service, academia and the mainstream media currently serve as a series of barricades against popular dissatisfaction. In this respect the current situation represents the inverse of 1984. Forty years ago, all of the above institutions were either strongly disapproving of, or actively hostile towards, the Muldoon government.

As far as the unions are concerned, the more things have changed the more they have stayed the same.

In 1984, between a half and two-thirds of the wage-earning workers were unionised, although Jim Bolger’s abolition of compulsory union membership in 1983 was wreaking havoc across the entire union movement.

Labour to the core (except for those who owed their allegiance to Moscow), the unions were absolutely desperate for a change of government. Not only because to survive they needed compulsory unionism restored but also because in order to once again become relevant to ordinary worker, they needed Muldoon’s wage and price freeze to be lifted.

Top priority In 2022, the unions are still determined to facilitate a Labour victory. If Fair Pay Agreements are to take root, and the Employment Relations Act is to remain union-friendly, then Jacinda Ardern’s government must be returned to office.

That, at least, is the position of union officialdom. At the level of the rank-and-file, however, the cost-of-living crisis has made substantial wage increases the top priority. Without pay rises large enough to offset inflation, the support of the working class cannot be taken for granted.

In regard to the unions, therefore, the key question over the next few months will be “upon whom will the workers vent their anger and frustration?” The bosses – by way of strikes? Jacinda’s government – by way of the ballot box? Or both?

The predicament of beneficiaries in 2022 could hardly be bleaker. Unlike 1984, there is no nationwide movement dedicated to advancing their interests.

The major cities do not boast – as they did in 1984 – Unemployed Workers’ Rights Centres. Only a handful of over-stretched organisations continue to fight the good fight for those in thrall to the Ministry of Social Development. By and large, the political class no longer fears beneficiaries. After 1984, as the process of “invisiblising” them gathered pace, the poor increasingly abandoned active citizenship. Few of them now remember that those who do not vote, do not count.

And yet, the vision of something large and dangerous moving outside the perimeter of “normal” politics – something missed by

the standard sensors of the political class – is hard to dispel.

Its most spectacular manifestation was on the grounds of Parliament back in February and March. But we glimpsed it again only last weekend when a thousand angry New Zealanders poured onto the Auckland motorway.

The powers-that-be do not appear to be bothered. “A thousand, you reckon? That’s nothing to worry about. Call us back when its 20,000!” Except, of course, when these angry and alienated citizens can put 20,000 people on the street, one suspects it will be far too late for the powers-that-be to do very much at all.

Hothouse of discontent If “Bishop” Brian Tamaki can bring about the consolidation of the angry micro-parties that have taken root and grown in the hothouse environment of the covid-19 pandemic, then the resulting electoral alliance may register just above the 5% threshold. We shall then discover how many New Zealanders, now reassured that their protest vote will not be wasted, abandon their usual allegiances.

Should the Reserve Bank’s aggressive stance towards inflation tip the country into a sharp recession, then the number of angry and alienated New Zealanders is bound to grow.

Moreover, if that strange amalgam of Māori and Pakeha resistance, brought into being by the government’s vaccination mandates, ever breaks through the wall of the underclass’ indifference to electoral politics, then Tamaki’s alliance will expand with truly frightening speed.

Last weekend was notable also for two other potentially vital political developments. First there was the failure of the Serious Fraud Office’s case against the NZ First Foundation. Nothing now stands between Winston Peters and those electoral lists where his jousting has won him so many baubles these past 30 years. With practised eye, he will be assessing exactly where the insertion of NZ First’s lance can produce the best effect.

Then there was the Green “children’s crusade” against James Shaw. Nothing could have illustrated more dramatically the crippling infantilisation of what has always been a pretty childish political party.

Labour must be praying that the forced re-opening of Shaw’s nomination was an ill-conceived factional stunt, which he will easily rebuff and, as he did in 2017, single-handedly lift the Greens back over the MMP threshold in 2023. Jacinda and her colleagues should pray hard because if Shaw fails, then so, too, will the Greens.

“Aha!”, Winston will cry. “Here is where the point of my lance must be lodged! In the critical space which the Greens’ demise has opened up.”

If 1984 was the “I can’t wait!” election that ushered in a new era of radical economic and social change, then 2023 shows every sign of turning into the “I can’t look!” election; if only because what follows is bound to make us weep. ■ Chris Trotter is a political commentator of more than 30 years’ experience and the editor of the Bowalley Road blog

■ 09

Events Featured events

Connecting New Zealand lawyers

Upcoming

Henderson lawyers’ lunch

September

Limited spots left Thursday 11 August 12.30pm – 2pm The Grounds, 8-14 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson, Auckland Sponsored by MAS

October

Wednesday 28 | Takapuna lawyers’ lunch

FINAL NOTICE

Wednesday 19 | Wellington express lawyers’ lunch Thursday 20 | Arthur Young’s retirement dinner

Learn more

Soon to be added:

Hawke’s Bay lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 17 August 12.30pm – 2pm East Pier Hotel, 50 Nelson Quay, Ahuriri, Napier, Hawke’s Bay

November | Immigration dinner with the Minister of Immigration November | New Plymouth Sundowner November | East Auckland lawyers’ lunch November | Tauranga Sundowner December | Northland lawyers’ lunch

Learn more

Christchurch lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 24 August 12.30pm – 2pm Dux Central, 6 Poplar Street, Christchurch, Canterbury Sponsored by MAS

Photo: zoranm / Getty Images

Learn more

Tauranga express lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 31 August 12.30pm – 2pm Miss Gee’s Bar & Eatery, 3/59 The Strand, Tauranga Learn more

Book Here

events@adls.org.nz

10

adls.org.nz

Jul 29, 2022 Issue 25

CLIMATE CHANGE

How not to solve the climate change problem Kevin Trenberth When politicians talk about reaching net-zero emissions, they’re often counting on trees or technology that can pull carbon dioxide out of the air.

What they don’t mention is just how much these proposals or geo-engineering would cost to allow the world to continue burning fossil fuels.

There are many proposals for removing carbon dioxide, but most make differences only at the edges, and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have continued to increase relentlessly, even through the pandemic.

I’ve been working on climate change for more than four decades. Let’s take a minute to come to grips with some of the rhetoric around climate change and clear the air, so to speak.

What’s causing climate change?

As has been well established now for several decades, the global climate is changing, and that change is caused by human activities.

When fossil fuels are burned for energy or used in transportation, they release carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas that is the main cause of global heating. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries. As more carbon dioxide is added, its increasing concentration acts like a blanket, trapping energy near Earth’s surface that would otherwise escape into space.

When the amount of energy arriving from the Sun exceeds the amount of energy radiating back into space, the climate heats up. Some of that energy increases temperatures and some increases evaporation and fuels storms and rains.

Because of these changes in atmospheric composition, the planet has warmed by an estimated 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 F) since about 1880 and is well on the way to 1.5 C (2.7 F), which was highlighted as a goal not to be crossed if possible by the Paris

Even if costs fell to US$100 per metric ton, the cost of reducing the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide by 1 part per million is around $780 billion. Atmospheric concentration has risen from about 280 parts per million before the industrial era to around 420 today

Agreement.

With global heating and gradual increases in temperature have come increases in all kinds of weather and climate extremes, from flooding to drought and heat waves that cause huge damage, disruption and loss of life.

Studies shows that global carbon dioxide emissions will need to reach net-zero carbon emissions by midcentury to have a chance of limiting warming to even 2 C (3.6 F).

Currently, the main source of carbon dioxide is China. But accumulated emissions matter most and the United States leads, closely followed by Europe, China and others.

Estimated shares of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2018 compared with cumulative emissions over time, based on data released by BP (see graphs above).

What works to slow climate change?

Modern society needs energy, but it does not have to be from fossil fuels.

Studies show that the most effective way to address the climate change problem is to decarbonize the economies of the world’s nations. This means sharply increasing use of renewable energy – solar and wind cost less than new fossil fuel plants in much of the world today – and the use of electric vehicles.

Unfortunately, this changeover to renewables has been slow, due in large part to the huge and expensive infrastructure related to fossil fuels, along with the vast amount of dollars that can buy influence with politicians.

geo-engineering, carbon capture and storage, including “direct air capture” and planting trees.

Here’s the issue: Geo-engineering often means “solar radiation management,” which aims to emulate a volcano and add particulates to the stratosphere to reflect incoming solar radiation back to space and produce a cooling effect. It might partially work but it could have concerning side effects.

The global warming problem is not sunshine, but rather that infrared radiation emitted from Earth is being trapped by greenhouse gases. Between the incoming solar and outgoing radiation is the whole weather and climate system and the hydrological cycle. Sudden changes in these particles or poor distribution could have dramatic effects.

The last major volcanic eruption, of Mt Pinatubo in 1991, sent enough sulphur dioxide and particulates into the stratosphere that it produced modest cooling, but it also caused a loss of precipitation over land.

It cooled the land more than the ocean so monsoon rains moved offshore, and longer term it slowed the water cycle.

Carbon capture and storage has been researched and tried for well over a decade but has sizeable

What doesn’t work?

Instead of drastically cutting emissions, companies and politicians have grasped at alternatives including

Continued on page 16 11

FEATURED CPD

The law and the wellbeing of tamariki ALL-LEVELS FAMILY SEMINAR

Seminar | Livestream 2 CPD hours Thursday 18 August 4pm – 6.15pm Price from $130 +GST Presenters Judge Sharyn Otene; Alison Cleland, senior lecturer, AUT and Anthony Dickson, principal advisor, Oranga Tamariki Chair Judge Emma Parsons

‘Court’ by forensics workshop

Providing an understanding of the context and nature of legislation around the care and wellbeing of children, this seminar will help lawyers better comprehend – and perform − their role in this crucial area.

IN PERSON

Workshop 4 CPD hrs Saturday 20 August 9am – 1.15pm Price from $300 +GST Presenters Tom Coyle, managing director, Forensic Insight Ltd and Allie Coyle, director, Forensic Insight Ltd

LIVESTREAM

During this practical hands-on workshop, you will interact with a forensic practitioner and fingerprint expert in a purpose-built crime centre to learn about the workings of major crime scenes and chain-of-evidence procedures.

Very limited spaces available.

ALL-LEVELS CRIMINAL WORKSHOP

FIND OUT MORE

Drafting complex wills ADVANCED WILLS WORKSHOP

Workshop 3.5 CPD hrs Tuesday 23 August 9am – 12.45pm Price from $300 +GST Facilitators Henry Stokes, general counsel, Perpetual Guardian and Theresa Donnelly, legal services manager, Perpetual Guardian

Led by two facilitators immersed in wills and asset planning and known for their practical aproach, this workshop will give you the confidence to deliver real value to your clients.

Limited spaces available

FIND OUT MORE 12

Jul 29, 2022 Issue 25

adls.org.nz/cpd

Dealing with media ALL-LEVELS GENERAL WEBINAR

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Tuesday 30 August 4pm – 5.30pm Price from $100 +GST Presenters Jenni McManus, journalist and LawNews editor; Brenda Newth, PR consultant and Samira Taghavi, barrister and practice manager, AM Legal

cpd@adls.org.nz

09 303 5278

Have you ever had a microphone shoved in your face when entering or emerging from court? If you were asked for an ‘off the record’ comment, how would you react?

What is the effect of an embargo?

Chair Marie Dyhrberg QC

FIND OUT MORE

Choosing a business structure FOUNDATION COMMERCIAL LIVESTREAM

Livestream 2 CPD hrs Wednesday 31 August 4pm – 6pm Price from $130 +GST Presenters Bevan Miles, partner, Chapman Tripp (tax); and Greer Fredricson, special counsel, Chapman Tripp (corporate and commercial)

SCA (NZ) Unit titles conference

ALL-LEVELS PROPERTY CONFERENCE

Knowing your clients’ business needs, coupled with a good understanding of the legal and tax features of common business structures, are key to advising clients on the best structure for their business. This seminar looks at a range of common options.

Chair Andrew Lewis, principal, Andrew Lewis Law

FIND OUT MORE

In Person | Livestream 4 CPD hrs Thursday 8 September 12.30pm – 5pm Price from $340 +GST Presenters and panellists Vicki Toan; Paula Beaton; Julie McLean; Joanna Pidgeon; Christine Cechova; Ben Thomson and Tim Jones

IN PERSON

Join us in person or via livestream for this ADLS/SCA (NZ) half-day conference. Hear from a range of experienced and engaging presenters and panellists on key topics including intensification, case law, wellness, and the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Act. Chairs and presenters Liza Fry-Irvine, director, Liza Fry-Irvine Law and Thomas Gibbons, principal, Thomas Gibbons Law LIVESTREAM 13

CPD IN BRIEF

Leading your career

Wellington workshop 8 CPD hrs Tuesday 13 September 8.45am – 5pm Price from $775 +GST Facilitators Miriam Dean QC and Liz Riversdale, Catapult

This practical, interactive one-day workshop, led by one of New Zealand’s top QCs and one of New Zealand’s senior leadership experts, will arm you with resources, self-confidence and focus to apply immediately to your role and to enhance your future career.

Places are limited. Register now to avoid missing out.

FIND OUT MORE

New Incorporated Societies Act

Effectiveness in the ERA

Livestream | In Person 2 CPD hrs Tuesday 27 September 4pm – 6.15pm Price from $130 +GST Presenters Mark von Dadelszen, barrister and Joanna Pidgeon, director, Pidgeon Judd

This seminar will provide an update on the new Incorporated Societies Act 2022 and will include practical scenarios from those at the coalface.

In Person | Livestream 2 CPD hrs Thursday 29 September 4pm – 6.15pm Price from $130 +GST Presenters Vicki Campbell; James Crichton; Anthony Drake and Jenni-Maree Trotman

Practical insights and advice on effectively representing your client in the Employment Relations Authority and tips on the advocacy skills needed to get the best outcome.

FIND OUT MORE

IN PERSON

International family law conference

In Person | Livestream 5.75 CPD hrs Thursday 10 November 9.15am – 4pm Price from $480 +GST Presenters Ewan Eggleston; Isaac Hikaka; Jennie Hawker; Calina Tataru; Margaret Casey QC; Inger Blackford; Zandra Wackenier and Duncan Holmes

Increasingly, family law matters involve one or more international aspects.

This conference will explore the key issues of property, maintenance and parenting. The focus will be on trans-Tasman proceedings and with insights into other jurisdictions.

Chair Simon Jefferson QC

IN PERSON

Choosing a Business Structure: Key Legal & Tax Considerations Wednesday 31 August | Livestream | 2 CPD hours Visit adls.org.nz for more information.

14

LIVESTREAM

LIVESTREAM

Jul 29, 2022 Issue 25

Please refer to deeds clerk. Please check your records and advise ADLS if you hold a will or testamentary disposition for any of the following people. If you do not reply within three weeks it will be assumed you do not hold or have never held such a document.

LawNews: The no-hassle way to source missing wills for $80.50 (GST Included) reception@adls.org.nz

ADLS, PO Box 58, Shortland Street,

DX CP24001, Auckland 1140

Fax: (09) 309 3726

( 09) 303 5270

ANDERSON Sharon Marie

LEMALAMA Uiese

• Late of 65 Bethells Road, Waitakere, Auckland • Self employed • Aged 61 / Died 13’06’22

• Late of Sekkim Crescent, Clover Park, Auckland • Retired • Aged 74 / Died 21’08’17

CAMPBELL David Anthony

MAFI Olivia (aka Olivia Katoanga Mafi)

• Late of Pakuranga, Auckland • Living in de facto relationship • Radio producer • Aged 46 / Died 21’06’22 GRANT Thomas William

• Late of 14 Mapau Road, Greenlane, Auckland • Widow • Aged 93 / Died 03’01’21

NEW TITLE

ADLS New Zealand Lawyers Directory The May - October 2022 edition of the ADLS New Zealand Lawyers Directory is now published.

It is the only directory that uses information from the ADLS database, making it the most comprehensive and up-to-date directory of lawyers in the market.

Sections include: barristers, firms by area, firms’ details, practitioners in alphabetical order, practitioners – corporate, nationwide, legal executives.

Other useful information includes: LINZ, QVNZ, Inland Revenue, notaries public, government departments, legal aid, statutory bodies, courts and tribunals, Crown Law Office, community corrections offices.

Price for ADLS members $75.00 plus GST* Price for non-member lawyers $90.00 plus GST* To purchase this directory please visit https://adls.org.nz or contact the ADLS bookstore by phone: 09 306 5740, fax: 09 306 5741 or email: thestore@adls.org.nz * + Postage and Packaging

AUCKLAND PRACTICE FOR SALE OR AMALGAMATION Long-established, very profitable firm with a diverse client range, covering estate planning, elder law, deceased estates, property and commercial law practice areas.

• Excellent premises and systems.

• Excellent and competent staff.

• Late of 123B Everitt Crescent, Whangamata • Married • Retired • Aged 90 / Died 26’06’22

Seeking a sale or merger but the opportunity may well suit an experienced younger practitioner looking for a partnership, ideally with a client base.

JAEGER Jack Robert

SOLD

• Late of 2/130 Golf Road, Titirangi, Auckland • Engineer • Aged 58 / Died 25’06’22

Expressions of interest in strict confidence to: advertiser@adls.org.nz quoting ref: APSM

Are you considering selling your Law Firm in 2022?

Profitable Boutique Law Firm $495,000

SOLD

Highly Profitable Law Firm $410,000

If you are looking for a fresh start and are curious about the value of your business call me today for a confidential discussion.

JD Hyslop 021 377 569 jd.hyslop@linkbusiness.co.nz

All LINK Offices Are Licenced REA08

WILL INQUIRIES

0800 546 528

LINKBUSINESS.CO.NZ

15

Continued from page 11 costs. Only about a dozen industrial plants in the US capture their carbon emissions and most of it is used to enhance drilling for oil.

Direct air capture – technology that can pull carbon dioxide out of the air – is being developed in several places. It uses a lot of energy, though, and while that could potentially be dealt with by using renewable energy, it’s still energy-intensive.

Planting trees is often embraced as a solution for offsetting corporate greenhouse gas emissions.

Trees and vegetation take up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and produce wood and other plant material. It’s relatively cheap.

But trees aren’t permanent. Leaves, twigs and dead trees decay. Forests burn. Recent studies show the risks to trees from stress, wildfires, drought and insects as temperatures rise will also be larger than expected.

The cost?

Scientists have been measuring carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958 and elsewhere.

The average annual increase in carbon dioxide concentration has accelerated, from about 1 part per

million by volume per year in the 1960s to 1.5 in the 1990s, to 2.5 in recent years since 2010.

This relentless increase, through the pandemic and in spite of efforts in many countries to cut emissions, shows how enormous the problem is.

Usually carbon removal is discussed in terms of mass, measured in megatons – millions of metric tons – of carbon dioxide per year, not in parts per million of volume. The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.5x1015 metric tons but as carbon dioxide (molecular weight 42) is heavier than air (molecular weight about 29), 1 part per million by volume of carbon dioxide is about 7.8 billion metric tons.

According to the World Resources Institute, the range of costs for direct air capture vary between US$250 and $600 per metric ton of carbon dioxide removed today, depending on the technology, energy source and scale of deployment. Even if costs fell to $100 per metric ton, the cost of reducing the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide by 1 part per million is around $780 billion.

Keep in mind that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has risen from about 280 parts per million before the industrial era to around 420 today, and it is currently rising

at more than 2 parts per million per year.

Tree restoration on one-third to two-thirds of suitable acreage could remove an estimated 7.4 gigatons of carbon dioxide by 2050 without displacing agricultural land, by WRI’s calculations.

That would be more than any other pathway. It might sound like a lot, but 7 gigatons of carbon dioxide is 7 billion metric tons, and so this is less than 1 part per million by volume. The cost is estimated to be up to $50 per metric ton. So even with trees, the cost to remove 1 part per million by volume could be as much as $390 billion.

Geo-engineering is also expensive.

So for hundreds of billions of dollars, the best prospect with these strategies is a tiny dent of 1 part per million by volume in the carbon dioxide concentration.

This arithmetic highlights the tremendous need to cut emissions. There is no viable workaround. ■ Kevin Trenberth is a distinguished scholar, NCAR, affiliated faculties, University of Auckland The above was first published in The Conversation and is republished with permission

■

2 CPD HOURS

Being Effective in the Employment Relations Authority Thursday 29 September | 4pm - 6.15pm | In Person, Auckland | Livestream This seminar will provide practical insights and advice on effectively representing your client in the Employment Relations Authority and tips on the advocacy skills necessary to obtain the best outcome for them.

T 09 303 5278

16

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd

Jul 29, 2022 Issue 25

COMMERCIAL PARTNER

CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST

Auckland CBD Firm I Rare Succession Opportunity Our client, a commercially focused and very successful boutique legal practice, is seeking a leader who will continue to grow their Commercial Practice over time and drive new revenue streams.

Crown Solicitor Tāmaki Makaurau | Auckland

You will be a team player, with the capability and ambition to achieve, a strong value set and the potential to be a future leader of the firm.

The solicitor-General invites expressions of interest (EOI’s) from suitably qualified law practitioners who are interested in applying for appointment as Crown Solicitor for Tāmaki Makaurau | Auckland.

We are looking for a senior commercial lawyer with proven client origination capability, connectedness with the Auckland market and a strong professional reputation to participate as an equity partner over time. You will work with and grow an existing book of clients which will complement your own established and transferable client base.

The appointed person will be responsible for conducting Crown prosecutions on behalf of the Solicitor General, conducting appeals, giving legal advice on prosecution issues and conducting other public law litigation. They will need to be a proven people leader and open-minded strategic thinker with a demonstrable understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Te Ao Māori.

This is an opportunity for rewarding work in a partnership that values work-life balance.

Practitioners must have held a New Zealand Practising certificate for at least seven years.

Please contact Barbara Taylor at enquiriesnz@johnsonpartners.co to discuss this opportunity.

Potential applicants must register their interest by email to Philip Coffey at ppu@crownlaw.govt.nz to receive an information pack which sets out the appointment process and contains further information about the Tāmaki Makaurau | Auckland warrant.

EOI’s should be submitted by 12 August 2022.

+64 21 764 723 https://johnsonpartners.co/

3.5 CPD HOURS

The Art of Will Drafting: Complex Wills Workshop Tuesday 23 August | 9am - 12.45pm | Workshop | Rydges, Auckland Led by two facilitators immersed in wills and asset planning and known for their practical aproach, this workshop will give you the confidence to deliver real value to your clients.

T 09 303 5278

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd

17