LawNews- Issue 44

NEWS Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Inside ■ LAW ASSOCIATION

Update from President Tony Herring P06-08

■ COMMITTEES

Meet convenor Stella Chan P16-17

Sue Keppel, CEO of The Law Association,

thelawassociation.nz

RETIRES

Contents 10-11 TRIBUNAL REGULATION DISCIPLINE

A senior practitioner runs the rule over a troubling disciplinary inquiry

LawNews is an official publication of The Law Association Inc. Editor: Jenni McManus Publisher: The Law Association Inc.

12-13 GUARDIANSHIP CULTURE MAORI

Editorial and contributor enquiries to: Jenni McManus 021 971 598 Jenni.McManus@thelawassociation.nz

Family Court breaks new ground on sperm donors’ rights

Reweti Kohere 09 306 3997 Reweti.Kohere@thelawassociation.nz

18-20 CYCLONE ELECTIONS LITIGATION

2023: the year in review

Advertising enquiries to: Darrell Denney 021 936 858 Darrell.Denney@thelawassociation.nz All mail to: The Law Association Inc., Level 4, Chancery Chambers, 2 Chancery Street, Auckland 1010. PO Box 58, Shortland Street DX CP24001, Auckland 1140, thelawassociation.nz

26-27 FEATURED CPD

28-29 Photo: Anna Efetova/Getty Images

EVENTS

This is our final issue of LawNews for 2023. The year has been beyond busy and most of us are hanging out for a well-earned break. The team at LawNews and The Law Association would like to thank our members, readers, advertisers and contributors for yet another bumper year.

Without your support, this publication would not exist. We wish you all a safe and happy Christmas break and please look out for our first issue for 2024, to be published on Friday 2 February.

02

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 The Law Association Inc., and available by subscription to nonmembers for $140 (plus GST) per year.

To subscribe, please email reception@thelawassociation.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 The Law Association Inc. or its members.

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

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

PEOPLE

The end of an era: Sue Keppel retires as CEO of The Law Association I hope that The Law Association will always cherish its independence and enable all voices to be heard, a place where wide debate and divergent viewpoints are welcome

Jenni McManus After 12 years at the helm, Sue Keppel will retire as CEO of The Law Association at the end of this year.

She leaves the organisation on a high note. Since she joined what was then the Auckland District Law Society Inc and now The Law Association, membership numbers have more than doubled and revenue has increased exponentially. Chancery Chambers, The Law Association’s headquarters in downtown Auckland, has been sold, the proceeds invested and the organisation’s financial future is secure.

For Keppel, this is a point of pride. Unlike some, she doesn’t view financial stability and a membership organisation as mutually exclusive. The Law Association might be a not-for-profit but without a successful commercial arm it would cease to exist.

“It’s really that simple,” she says. ‘I’m confident I leave The Law Association with a robust strategic plan and a strong balance sheet.”

But the picture wasn’t always so rosy. When Keppel arrived at ADLSI in November 2011, the organisation was fighting for its life.

Had it not been for the efforts of a small core group of dedicated supporters, the endgame might have been quite different.

“It was a very big ship to turn around,” Keppel says. Two weeks before her start date, she was at a party where a lawyer told her that ADLS was unlikely to survive the next two years. “That was quite a pervasive view at the time, but I’d done a lot of change management so I wasn’t too concerned about that,” she says.

If The Law Association’s independence were to become compromised in any way, then that just may be the point at which its existence might be questioned

“I thought it was a worthwhile organisation within an important sector in New Zealand society. It was an organisation that I could see had a past history, even if that was different now. It had resources, it had the ability to do some things that made a difference if it were able to get on its feet and keep going and yes, that would be different from its past history when it was the regulator for the northern region. It was also going to be a challenge. And it was within a sector that I’m interested in.

“It had this band of people who had fought to keep it going and had gone through the incorporation process because that

Continued on page 04 03

Continued from page 03

We thank everyone who is a member or has ever been a member for their support and contribution

was the obvious vehicle to keep it going and enable it to function legally. But when I got there, it was very fragile as an organisation.

Its direction and purpose were not clear. And that’s why so many people thought it wouldn’t exist because it didn’t particularly have a clear purpose.”

Transformation Fast-forward 12 years and Keppel is now working with her seventh president, Tony Herring. The organisation’s CPD program has been transformed from a two-hour, once-a-week event at a local hotel into a suite of slick webinars and in-person offerings, and one of The Law Association’s main revenue streams. There are 18 committees involving about 250 members who regularly submit on draft legislation and advocate for the profession at select committee hearings.

“Our committee members, and our convenors especially, give tirelessly to this work,” Keppel says. “Committee work has proved highly valuable in developing relationships and providing advice to a wide range of organisations, including government ministries, the Commerce Commission and the Parole Board.

Our committees enjoy positive and productive relationships with the judiciary and often enjoy visits from judges from the various courts, a positive way of fostering the relationship between bar and Bench.”

Keppel says the way she prefers to work is to establish good relationships with people. “This is not about getting out and doing everything yourself. It’s about doing things through other people.

And that’s why relationships are so important.”

So, all up, The Law Association is in good heart.

Keppel says there’s much left to do but the business is in “a sound and optimistic position” and well-placed to contribute to and support the legal profession into the future. Crucially, it has carved out a position as an independent voice for its members, crafting strong relationships with the judiciary, MPs, Cabinet ministers and other legal representative organisations.

The importance of this independence was spelt out by Keppel late last month at a dinner to celebrate her 12 years at The Law Association.

“One thing I do hope, which is at the top of my list, is that The Law Association will always cherish its independence and enable all voices to be heard, a place where wide debate and divergent viewpoints are welcome,” she said. “If this independence were to become compromised in any way, then that just may be the point 04

I’m confident I leave The Law Association with a robust strategic plan and a strong balance sheet

at which its existence might be questioned.”

Underpinning everything are The Law Association’s 5235 members. Keppel calls them “the heart of our organisation” and since she has been CEO, these members have been front and centre of the organisation’s focus and everything it has achieved.

“I think one of the biggest things is recognising [this] and respecting it as a member organisation. Now, that doesn’t mean that every member is going to be happy with everything that goes on because if you’ve got thousands of members, then obviously different views will prevail. But I think the most important thing was positioning it as a member organisation and keeping the members at the forefront of it and trying to grow it as a member organisation. And if one doesn’t believe in that, then one shouldn’t be working there.

“And then under that notion of valuing the members comes the various ways we do that. Giving the organisation a voice, enabling it to be at the table over time. And then your products and your services are part of that.

“We thank everyone who is a member or has ever been a member for their support and contribution.”

Having a seat at the table is another point of pride. “[The Law Association] has a valid voice. It has been invited by courts to act as an intervener on numerous occasions, it is invited to contribute to almost all activities and consultations taking place.

It was one of the original organisations to participate in the group established by the Chief Justice and led by the Chief High Court Judge to enable the judiciary, the profession and related government organisations to address the increased difficulties in the courts during covid-19 – a working group that still exists today.”

Early adopter Though it represents a profession famous for its conservatism, The Law Association hasn’t been slow to embrace technology.

It was an early adopter of electronic voting and in offering an online platform for its annual general meetings. “We were one of the very first small organisations to go down that route,” Keppel says. “Even some of the very large corporates were still having

Continued on page 05

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 04 reservations about that and the technology.”

However, the process wasn’t quick. Under its rules, ADLS first needed to notify its members, who were then asked to vote on the proposed change at the AGM the following year. It then took another year for the change to be implemented. There was a bit of “noise”, Keppel recalls, but not enough to scupper the plan. The Law Association now runs hybrid AGMs, with members able to attend either in person or online.

Not only does the online platform offer better engagement, particularly for members who don’t live in Auckland, but it has streamlined the business’ back-office processes. Keppel says when she joined, these process were manual, costly and timeconsuming.

“When I came in here, there were squillions of bits of paper and white envelopes every year and I just thought, ‘this is madness’, with people paid to come in and stuff envelopes. You don’t see anything like that now. It was important for engaging with the people and it was also important in setting the direction of what sort of organisation we were going to be.”

Looking forward, there is a need to attract younger members.

Young lawyers aren’t necessarily as ready as their predecessors to join an organisation unless they can clearly see its value to them.

Keppel references The Law Association’s MoU with the Equal Justice Project as a way of connecting with younger people. It had a very strong purpose, she says, and is an example of the work the organisation is doing beneath the surface to remain supportive to the profession.

“Aside from actually joining a member organisation, there may be different ways that people may want to be engaged with an organisation,” she says. “There may be different types of subscription models. And they are the things that I’m sure the organisation will be keeping its eye on in the future. So, ultimately it’s about keeping people engaged with the organisation and there’s going to be more than one way to skin a cat in terms of doing that.”

The future Asked how the relationship might evolve between The Law Association and the New Zealand Law Society if both find themselves competing head-on as representative membership organisations, Keppel says she sees the situation as an opportunity for change to happen in a way that could benefit the

The Law Association might be a not-for-profit but without a successful commercial arm it would cease to exist

whole profession.

“There’s not enough information out there at the moment to know exactly what that would look like. But what I do know is The Law Association has a proud history of being a representative organisation. We have a culture of being a representative organisation which is different from the culture that organisations might have if they’re carrying out different purposes, such as regulation.

“And that is a very significant thing. I think The Law Association needs to be open to the opportunities that are there to make the profession a better place and demonstrate how good and how strong it can be as a representative organisation.

It needs to engage with other representative organisations in New Zealand as well. And often you will get greater strength out of bringing organisations together than having a lot of individual organisations.

“Now, it’s a big step to get those organisations on the same page. I’ve often wondered, for example, how much more effective women lawyers’ organisations might be if they combined their efforts because New Zealand is still a very small country and I think the concept of scale is not always well understood here.

“So, what I’m suggesting is that if a number of organisations could be brought together so those who have particular interests in a slice of the pie in an area could come together, then that would be fantastic. It wouldn’t be easy but it could bring real benefit to the profession.

“I think The Law Association needs to continue to be a strong representative organisation and develop relationships with other representative organisations and see how those ideas can come together. That is probably how it may increase the strong representative culture that is needed to be truly effective.”

On her retirement, Keppel says she has no particular plans, although some form of community work will be part of the mix.

“I’m looking forward to not having to be anywhere at a certain time - just having the flexibility to do more of what I want to do when I want to do it. I guess it’s not having to be anywhere at particular times, five days a week.

“I will do all the normal things, like travel and whatnot in the future, but at the moment I don’t feel the need to have every week of next year tied down with activities. I just want to pause and enjoy the summer, and we’ll take it from there.

“This retirement thing is interesting. It’s not a small decision to decide to stop work but I’m sure it is the right time for me to finish and hopefully it will be the right time for the organisation.” ■ See pages 28 and 29 for photos from Sue Keppel’s retirement dinner ■ 05

Christmas update from The Law Association’s President Tony Herring Tēnā koutou kātoa

Tony Herring

My vision for 2024 is to develop some new initiatives for our members – a new commercial offering because we are a commercial organisation as well as a representative body

As most of you are now aware, our long-serving CEO Sue Keppel is retiring at Christmas. Sue has headed up ADLS (now known as The Law Association) for 12 years and she is going to be a hard act to follow.

Sue’s contribution to The Law Association has been outstanding, on both the representative and commercial sides of the organisation. During her tenure, membership numbers have grown from 2702 to 5235 and revenue has almost doubled. She has steered the business through huge change, the sort of change we could not have imagined when she joined the organisation in 2011, and she has done this with energy, professionalism, wisdom and foresight. The legal profession in Auckland and throughout New Zealand owes a huge debt of gratitude to Sue Keppel.

The rebranding of the former Auckland District Law Society to ADLS and, most recently, to The Law Association have been watershed moments for our organisation and Sue navigated us superbly through that process, with all its moving parts, and achieved an outcome that has put The Law Association in a strong position to grow our market share and become indispensable to our members.

Back in November 2011, when Sue arrived at what was then called the Auckland District Law Society Inc, the organisation, post-incorporation and the split from the New Zealand Law Society, didn’t know what it was or what it wanted to be. Our detractors speculated that the Auckland District Law Society would be gone within six months. But over time, Sue has created a logical, coherent organisation, always being very clear about its purpose and what was needed to build goodwill. With first-class networking skills, she developed excellent relationships across the profession and beyond – in particular, with the High Court bench and the Chief Justice.

In short, Sue is a master networker who has created these connections which help us all. And I know how clever she is in her judgment calls and in her promotion of our association.

I’ve been on council for seven years now and I’ve seen first-hand how hard Sue works. Sue has kept our organisation at the forefront of processes such as digitisation, the development of our CPD offering and our 18 Law Association committees.

She successfully negotiated the sale, at the top of the property market, of our Chancery Chambers building in downtown Auckland. Although the building has been a well-loved home for us, ultimately we’re not a heritage building-owning society. Our focus, as Sue regularly reminds us, needs to be on our members, serving them and serving the public. Selling the building was a complex process and a large number of members had very strong views. But Sue led that process so effectively and without her guidance and wise counsel, I have no doubt that we would not be where we’re at today – in a very strong position to serve our members and provide new opportunities.

It’s hard to pin down Sue’s legacy to a single issue. She’s our biggest supporter, she’s our biggest advocate and she’s going to leave a huge hole in our organisation and in our profession. She’s had to make some huge calls during her time at The Law Association and on each occasion she has shown excellent judgment. She’s charming and smart, a good friend and a shrewd judge of people. To honour her massive contribution, the council has made her a life member of The Law Association.

Continued on page 07

06

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 04

People have embraced the new brand

On a much sadder note, the profession was rocked earlier this year by loss of one of our new council members, Telise Kelly, who died in April after being struck by a vehicle outside the North Shore District Court. In the time since, and in conjunction with Telise’s family and her old firm Martelli McKegg, Sue has been instrumental in establishing a six-figure trust fund dedicated to Telise’s memory. It will enable The Law Association to support a student who otherwise might not have been able to have a career in the law.

Looking forward I have a great passion for The Law Association and am excited by the fact that we are the largest independent, voluntary membership organisation that represents lawyers. That’s our big point of difference from the New Zealand Law Society: we’ve got 5235 members who voluntarily seek us out and pay us their membership fees every year so I feel a real responsibility to ensure we look after those members and provide them with We are the largest really good value.

My vision for 2024 is to build on our point of difference and our dedication independent, to great service by developing some new initiatives for our members – a new voluntary commercial offering that will drive revenue because we are a commercial membership organisation as well as a representative body. We want it to excite our members and improve their working lives. We are a truly independent organisation organisation and I want us to stand on our own two feet. that represents Some changes are already in train. We’ve got a new deed of lease coming lawyers out in the new year which, for people like me who work in the commercial property space, is quite exciting but I want to come up with another strong limb for our members and I’ll spend the summer thinking about what that might be. Ideally, it will be something that creates a network for members and some form of support for their practices. It might include developing off-theshelf policies and templates so in-house counsel and sole practitioners can do their six-minute units, serve their clients and make a living without having to worry about the backroom stuff.

I’m not saying I’ll invent the new Uber or Airbnb, but maybe we’ll have an app that makes it easier for lawyers to do their jobs. And every time there’s a change in the law – for example, the new government has said it will bring back 90-day trial periods for employers with 20+ employees – we would update the app relating to that policy or employment agreement template and members will get that as part of their subscription.

Professional challenges Looking back at the past year, I think one of the major issues for practitioners is the significant delays in litigation and serious backlogs in the courts for both civil and criminal matters. Some of our members are very stretched. One was telling me she has done six homicide trials in the past year which is a massive

Continued on page 08

07

Continued from page 07

My vision for 2024 is to build on our point of difference

workload. Another issue is the poor physical condition of our courthouses.

Those are some of the real challenges for litigators and then on my side, commercial and property, I think we will still face some economic headwinds. The property market is definitely on the move but (as the Reserve Bank has just flagged) the OCR may not come down as quickly as we expected. I’m not predicting a recession and I think the economy will improve Sue has but probably not as quickly as we had hoped or expected, so that’s a challenge.

Rebranding

created a logical, coherent organisation, always being very clear about its purpose

The other thing I’d like to highlight is the rebranding from ADLS to The Law Association. It had to happen. I’m the 87th president and the first to be based outside the greater Auckland/Northland region.

I’ve had such positive feedback about the rebranding since we made the change at the beginning of October. People have embraced the new brand. I’ve had people come up to me and say, “we voted against the name-change” or “we didn’t care and we didn’t bother to vote” but in the next breath they tell me it’s great and that we’ve done a fantastic job.

So, as we head into the new year, we face the critical job of appointing a new CEO – probably the most important decision I will make during my presidency – we’re looking at a new revenue stream which will bring new opportunities for our members and, best of all, everyone is looking forward to a holiday. We’re through the election, we lost the Rugby World Cup, everyone’s been busy and we all need a break.

Have a wonderful Christmas and a happy and relaxing new year. ■

Learn and earn CPD hours anytime and anywhere that suits you

200+ courses readily available 20+ areas of practice 08

CPD On Demand®

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

PROPERTY LAW

Tribunal blasts landlord for harassing tenant, attempting to dodge statutory duties The $4,000 emotional harm award was made after the tenant told the tribunal she suffered significantly as a result of the landlord’s treatment of her and was hospitalised with high blood pressure because of the impact of the events on her stress levels

Sally Lindsay A North Shore landlord has been ordered to pay a tenant $4,000 for emotional harm, despite claiming the Tenancy Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the tenant’s claims because she was a boarder, meaning the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) did not apply.

The tenant filed 16 claims with the tribunal after a row with the landlord about a damaged bedroom door at the Hillcrest rental.

Both landlord and tenant have name suppression.

The landlord lived in her own home next door to the rental.

She and the tenant knew each other previously and were on friendly terms until the tenant’s partner destroyed a bedroom door and its frame during a domestic dispute at the four-bedroom house. Mortified, the tenant decided to have the damage repaired before the landlord returned from a month-long overseas holiday, rather than reporting the damage. But the plan went terribly wrong.

As the landlord and her husband passed the rental after returning from their holiday, they heard construction noise and discovered a builder repairing the damage. Upset and outraged, the landlord sent the builder packing. The tenant was initially contrite, but an argument ensued.

Soon after, the landlord gave two weeks’ notice to end the tenancy. Before the tenant moved out, police contacted her because her domestic violence alert had been activated. She went home to discover the premises had no power or water. The loss of power had triggered the domestic violence alarm.

The tenant and her son spent a couple of nights at her

The public interest favours orders to punish and deter this landlord and others from committing such flagrant breaches of their duties

mother’s house while her partner got the power and water restored. After she complained to police, a trespass notice was issued against the landlord. A few days later, the tenant again discovered she had no hot water and found the cylinder fuse had been removed. A heated argument began when the tenant confronted the landlord.

The landlord then texted the tenant: “Your board arrangement has been terminated and you are requested to vacate the premises with your belongings immediately. This is due to your verbal and physical threats to do further damage to the property.”

The tenant responded by text: “I don’t accept that notice, sorry, as there were no threats made.”

The landlord and her husband told the tribunal that just before notice was given, the tenant threatened to “smash” them. She was “almost drug-infused”, the tribunal was told.

The tenant accepted that during the altercation she said, “turn my f****** power on” and “f*** you” as she stormed off, but denies she said anything else more threatening.

‘Duress and threats’ Subsequently, 16 claims alleging breaches by the landlord were filed at the tribunal, while the landlord claimed rent arrears, repairs for the damaged door and replacement of a vanity unit plus general damages due to the tenant’s alleged “duress and threats”. The general damages claim was dismissed while the tenant has to pay $2,672 to the landlord to settle the remaining claims.

When the tenant moved into the property, she paid $660 a week in rent. No written agreement was made, with the landlord believing it was a” boarding-type” situation. At the tribunal hearing, the landlord claimed the RTA did not apply to the tenancy because she herself was living at the premises and it was a boarding arrangement.

The landlord claimed she and her husband had reserved a workshop-type space within the house to themselves. However, adjudicator R Kee found while the space was within the envelope of the house, it was separate from the rental premises. The landlord also claimed she shared the premises’ kitchen, bathroom

Continued on page 21 09

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

Navigating the complexities of legal practice: Auckland Standards Committee v Joseph Park Park’s case serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance required in legal practice where competence, communication, and cultural understanding intersect

Lloyd Gallagher In a recent and thought-provoking case that has captured the attention of the legal community, Joseph Boaz Park, a solicitor with substantial experience in conveyancing but limited exposure to wills and estate administration, found himself at the centre of a disciplinary inquiry.

This case revolved around allegations of incompetence and rudeness in managing a deceased client’s estate. Not only does it highlight the multifaceted nature of legal ethics, but also raises significant questions about the approach of regulatory inquiry by bodies in the legal profession.

Park got into difficulties when attempting work beyond his accustomed scope in the area of estate planning. The will had a clerical error that resulted in a different outcome than that intended by the elderly client and Park. Despite supervision, the will was executed with the flaw.

After the client’s passing, the complainant raised a complaint as she found it difficult to accept the mother had different intentions to the ones she knew. Matters began to escalate as the complainant became hostile and engaged solicitors to bring a complaint to the standards committee.

The tribunal considered the carefully crafted arguments advanced that the standards committee should have declined to interfere with decisions not yet made by the High Court. It was argued that before the committee engaged with the review, a decision was necessary to show there was in fact a mistake that 10

The standards committee’s approach underscores the need for regulatory bodies to exercise judicious and proportionate responses

was so deplorable it was not capable of correction.

During the discussion it became clear that there continues to be no clear position as to the separation between the committee’s role and that of the tribunal. Many understand that the committee is the investigating arm that then brings matters before the tribunal for review if it is unable to determine the correct approach, in a similar way that police bring matters to trial.

However, during the trial it became clear that the tribunal considered there was overlap and that the tribunal sits as an extension to the arm of the committee. During the trial, there was some back and forth that continued to create a lack of clarity about the separation of the roles, leaving the position requiring further debate. But for now, the approach is seen as the tribunal simply being an extension of the committee and there is nothing in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 to limit the disciplinary jurisdiction of the tribunal – or the

committee – in this stance.

As a result, the jurisdiction of wills and administration remains solely that of the High Court and actions taken by a solicitor in these roles are subject to discipline under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008.

In its ruling, which the author considers a credit to the tribunal members, the following resulted. Park was considered to be an honest and diligent practitioner who did not act wilfully or blindly except for a degree of incompetence, arguably brought about by a lack of supervision by his senior who was in a supervising role, and cultural dissonance.

The tribunal also considered the Auckland Standards Committee had exercised no effective control over the continued and repeated allegations against Park, that were unhinged in places, and that the committee had become captured by the complainant, resulting in the issue becoming bigger than it should have been. The tribunal was impressed

by Park and his fidelity and found no reason to call into question his character as a practitioner.

The result make it clear that despite the lack of clarity between the tribunal and the committee roles, the tribunal’s powers are far-reaching. I summarise below the most important practice policies from the case.

Continued on page 11

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 10

Conclusion

Regulatory scrutiny Executor’s conduct and professional accountability ■ The tribunal’s decision challenges the notion of jurisdiction and sets out that an executor’s conduct, intertwined with his/her solicitor role, is subject to professional discipline.

■ The standards committee’s approach in Park’s case must not extended beyond a balanced pursuit of justice. The committee’s aggressive stance on numerous allegations, many of which were disproportionate to the actual issues, suggests a potential overreach, raising concerns about the committee’s judgment and the proportionality of its disciplinary actions.

Competence in legal practice ■ Park’s errors in drafting and administering the will, while indicative of his limited experience in this area of law, also bring to light the importance of maintaining competence across diverse legal practices.

■ Notably, Park’s consistent efforts to honour his late client’s wishes demonstrate a commendable level of dedication and fidelity to client intentions.

This aspect of Park’s professional conduct, unfortunately overlooked by the committee, deserves recognition. It highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of a solicitor’s challenges, especially when venturing into unfamiliar legal territories and faced with a disgruntled beneficiary.

Professional conduct and cultural sensitivity ■ The case underscores the necessity for lawyers to uphold professionalism and respect in client interactions. Park’s preference for communicating in Korean, while seen as inflexible, was not deemed professional misconduct by the tribunal.

This perspective suggests a more empathetic

This case calls for a more nuanced appreciation of the challenges faced by legal practitioners, particularly in areas outside their primary expertise

understanding of the situation, contrasting with the committee’s critical viewpoint.

■ The tribunal’s recognition that Park’s approach, though rigid, was not necessarily inappropriate under the circumstances casts his actions in a more sympathetic light, underscoring the importance of cultural sensitivity in legal practice.

Communication dynamics ■ The case highlights the critical importance of respecting clients’ cultural and linguistic preferences in legal communications. Park’s linguistic choice, stemming from a place of cultural familiarity, underscores the complex dynamics of client-lawyer relationships in a multicultural legal landscape.

■ While note-taking is important, the committee’s extension of the rule was not upheld as being the required standard. The committee’s approach to note-taking was not only oppressive to practitioners, it is also likely to create a cost burden on clients that would ultimately see limitations on access to justice. The approach was not accepted and the tribunal considered that it would not extend this rule or any other to include extensions beyond what was intended by legislators.

Park’s case serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance required in legal practice where competence, communication, and cultural understanding intersect.

While Park demonstrated a laudable commitment to his client’s wishes and adherence to his professional duties, the standards committee’s approach underscores the need for regulatory bodies to exercise judicious and proportionate responses. This case calls for a more nuanced appreciation of the challenges faced by legal practitioners, particularly in areas outside their primary expertise, and urges regulatory bodies to consider the broader context and intentions behind a solicitor’s actions.

As legal professionals, we must advocate for a balanced and fair approach in our regulatory processes, ensuring that justice is served not only in the letter but also in the spirit of the law.

Final thoughts It is the author’s opinion that there is a flaw in our system of oversight. Education is being dropped in these areas by our regulatory bodies, leaving a gap.

It is important that practitioners reach out to those bodies that can assist them in the areas of practice and regulatory accountability. Communications, especially with more foreign firms finding a voice in our communities, leave a demand in education and communication strategies for multicultural and regulatory policy.

The Law Association and Gallagher & Co Consultants assist in these areas and we suggest practitioners reach out before they are faced with similar issues. ■ Read the tribunal’s decision here ■ Lloyd Gallagher is managing partner at Gallagher & Co and convenor of The Law Association’s Technology and Law committee

AI and the Law A white paper

Get your copy

11

FAMILY LAW

Family Court breaks new ground in ruling on rights of a Māori sperm donor I have already begun to field calls from potential donor recipients concerned about the implication that a donor could be granted guardianship rights in respect of his child

Stewart Dalley

Stewart Dalley

There is a potential chilling effect from the decision which could result in a further decline in the number of people willing to be donors when demand far outstrips supply 12

The recent decision of the Family Court in Rangi v Mable (not their real names) [2023] NZFC 10811 relates to the role of a sperm donor in the life of the child he helped create. It has had a mixed reception from legal representatives who work in the area of assisted reproductive technology, as well as fertility clinics and the relevant ethics committees. The decision is also likely to generate substantial interest from family law and tikanga Māori academics and experts.

The decision reveals the sperm donor first applied to be recognised as the father of the child. The court correctly and quickly determined that he was not the father because the Status of Children Act 1969 expressly provides that where a woman conceives a child through artificial insemination, the non-partner sperm donor is “not for any purpose” a parent of the child conceived. So far, so vanilla.

The court then had to consider guardianship and contact orders, as well as an order seeking to change the child’s name. The apparent main thrust of the applicant’s argument was that because the sperm donor was Māori, the child was also Māori and because the child’s mother was Pākehā, she was not fully able to ensure the child could access her whakapapa. Accordingly, it was argued that the sperm donor required the aforementioned orders to ensure the welfare and best interests of the child.

In the end, the court granted contact orders (with day-to-day parenting remaining with the mother) and a guardianship order for the donor. The court also changed the child’s middle name to include one of the donor’s choosing, on the basis that it related to the role of the donor in the “upbringing of the child” and was, therefore, enabled by s 41 of the Care of the Children Act 2004, given that the parties had entered a donor agreement prior to conception.

By all accounts, the case is the first of its type in New Zealand

to deal with the rights of a sperm donor, and certainly the rights of a sperm donor and the welfare of the child as it relates to tikanga. Hence its interest.

Worried donors and recipients As someone who regularly advises people undertaking surrogacy as well as gamete donors and recipients, I believe the case calls for some deliberation.

On one hand, the case could be viewed as fact-specific. After all, the decision suggests there had been prior discussions and written agreement between the donor and recipient, whereby it was intended the donor would have some role in respect of the child and her Māori heritage would be important and catered for, including the views of the donor on the child’s name. Looked at from that standpoint, the case does not upset the applecart for donor recipients generally. It does, of course, add to the growing tikanga Māori jurisprudence.

There is, however, another way the decision can be viewed.

Following mainstream media reporting of the decision, I have already begun to field calls from potential donor recipients concerned about the implication that a donor could be granted guardianship rights in respect of his child, and then said guardian could be involved in making decisions related to the child, including medical treatment, where the child lives and religion.

So worried are some people about the potential for such an occurrence that they are indicating they may instead go overseas and obtain gametes from an anonymous donor through a sperm or egg bank. Given the anonymity works both ways, the likelihood of the donor being able to identify his child would be vastly reduced, and with it the risk of any such orders being sought.

Donors through New Zealand fertility clinics cannot be anonymous and identifying information is required to be captured

Continued on page 13

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 12 and held on our Human Assisted Reproductive Technology register, which is accessible by the child once he or she turns 18 or before that through their parents. The purpose of that register is to ensure the child has access to his or her identity because it is in their welfare and best interests.

Our register does not unfortunately allow for the capture and retention of the same information related to non-clinic donors.

That is regrettable and should be fixed. However, in most non-clinic donor cases, the donor will be known to the recipient so they can pass this information to their child. If the decision in Rangi v Mable is, however, going to drive future gamete recipients overseas to ensure anonymity or to keep donors hidden from the children, it will cause immeasurable harm to the children created. We have already borne witness to this through groups such as Donor Conceived Aotearoa which is understandably angry at its inability to access identity information about the donors due to the lack of records and the anonymity that previously surrounded gamete donation in New Zealand. Think hidden adoptions and you are on the right track.

Chilling effect While the concerns and anxiety caused by Rangi v Mable are more acutely felt by potential gamete recipients (and past recipients), donors themselves will be feeling the pinch at the potential the case has for widening the possibility of a recipient seeking to impose liabilities on them, especially if they have built a relationship with the child concerned.

In that sense, there is a potential chilling effect from the decision which could result in a further decline in the number of people willing to be donors when demand far outstrips supply. It may also cause Māori donors to pause for thought when clinic donors are already rare.

Personally, I consider the case of an unwitting donor having liabilities foisted upon him by a recipient to be remote, but this case reinforces the saying “never say never”. Notwithstanding, where a donor willingly accepts and seeks orders granting him rights

in respect of a child, then liabilities should follow. In that case, a donor granted a guardianship order should be made liable for child support, despite the language of the Child Support Act 1991.

There are also potential implications for fertility clinics, in terms of reviewing donor consents, the advice and support they give through counselling and in the way they present applications to the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ECART).

In turn, ECART may need to consider how it determines applications, especially those involving cross-cultures, to ensure they give effect, in particular, to principles 4(f) and (g) of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004. The Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology may also want to consider whether there is a need to make any adjustments to the guidelines it sets for ECART (and, by dint, fertility clinics and applicants to ECART) to follow.

While the ramifications of Rangi v Mable rumble along, in my world it will now be added as a cautionary tale when advising potential gamete recipients. Prior to the court’s decision, I and others who operate in this field would regularly roll out the case involving a lesbian New Zealand couple living in Australia who had a child with the help of a friend who acted as a sperm donor and who was regularly involved in the child’s life over a considerable period. Then, when the couple sought to relocate to New Zealand, they were prevented from doing so because of the psychological connection the child had with the donor, such that it was deemed not to be in the child’s best interest to relocate. Myriad contact and parenting orders were granted.

For me, the key takeaway is that both cases have in common an assessment of the welfare and best interests of the child which, on the facts of each case, saw the courts grant relevant orders.

Rangi v Mable does not change that; it merely gives us a specific example – one that is uniquely ours, given the tikanga elements.

There could, however, be unintended and potentially devastating, consequences. Time will tell. ■

Where a donor willingly accepts and seeks orders granting him rights in respect of a child, then liabilities should follow

Read the decision here ■ Stewart Dalley is a partner at D&S Lawyers and convenor of The Law Association’s Immigration and Refugee Law committee

Learn and earn CPD Hours anytime, anywhere Explore our new On Demand packages. Choose from 3, 5, or 10-hour learning bundles, each covering different practice areas and soft skills.

CPD On Demand® 13

PRIVACY

Privacy Commissioner to issue draft biometrics code of practice The proposed rules target what the OPC sees are the key privacy risks associated with biometric information

Biometric information is serious business because it relates to unique, and often irreplaceable, human features

14

Reweti Kohere

three key proposals.

Privacy Commissioner Michael Webster will issue a draft code of practice for regulating how “unique and often irreplaceable” biometric information is collected. Expected in early 2024, the exposure draft, which will be open for consultation, proposes three new rules for collecting and using biometric information, centered on proportionality, transparency and purpose.

Biometric information, typically collected by facial recognition technology (FRT), retinal scans, voice recognition and other technologies, is “serious business because it relates to unique, and often irreplaceable, human features like a person’s face, fingerprints, voice or how they walk”, says Webster.

“New Zealanders need to have trust and confidence in the use of biometrics by organisations and businesses. My office will issue a biometrics code exposure draft in early 2024 that we’ll open for everyone to have their say on.”

Codes of practice change how some of the privacy principles in the Privacy Act 2020 apply in specific situations; in this case, when organisations use technology to analyse biometric information.

The announcement follows a round of targeted consultation that the privacy watchdog held mid-year on a proposed biometrics code, testing with a limited set of key stakeholders whether the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s (OPC) ideas can work in safeguarding biometric information.

The feedback, the office says, has informed its focus on the

The three rules Under the exposure draft, agencies collecting and using biometric information will have to decide whether their reasons for using biometric technologies outweigh the privacy intrusion, or risks of intrusion. Such agencies must be transparent and open about when they will collect and use biometric information and, under the proposed “purpose limitations” rule, some reasons for collecting and using biometric information will be ruled out.

In September, the privacy watchdog earmarked banning the use of smart billboards that scan shoppers’ faces in order to target them with personalised advertising. The practice of targeted marketing has most recently been linked with Westfield shopping malls across New Zealand. The OPC considered it posed too many risks or used sensitive personal information inappropriately.

The proposed rules target what the OPC sees are the key privacy risks associated with biometric information: “unnecessary or high-risk collection and use”, “function and scope creep” and “a lack of control or knowledge about when and how biometrics are collected and used”.

The rules would apply when agencies collect biometrics to

Continued on page 15

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 14

Seeking brilliant legal minds: Launch your career in 2024!

Seeking a new role for 2024? Explore the diverse and rewarding career opportunities we offer.

use in automated processes that verify, identify or classify individuals.

The right way forward “We’re taking a leadership position here because we need to develop ideas that are workable and effective but also take into account technological advancements,” Webster says. “We have looked at the privacy risks related to biometrics, analysed what is happening with laws in other countries and heard from local stakeholders. It has shown us that consulting on new rules specifically for biometrics is the right way forward.”

New In addition to the privacy risks, signficant Zealanders concerns have been raised about the need to have potential for bias, discrimination and surveillance that biometrics pose to Māori. trust and And the OPC is conscious that it can take confidence “compliance action” to protect individuals’ in the use of privacy rights where agencies aren’t biometrics by complying with the code of practice.

The OPC is “especially keen” to ensure organisations it gets the technical aspects of the code and right, with the commissioner saying that businesses getting the right wording in the draft code is important to avoid any unintended consequences.

Users and providers of biometric technology, advocates for privacy, human rights and consumer rights and the broader public are being encouraged to have their say on the draft code.

An evolving landscape The exposure draft has signalled the OPC recognises the significance of the evolving landscape of biometric technology and its potential implications for individual privacy, says Bell Gully in a recent insights update.

Businesses should carefully review any current biometric data practices, write partner Richard Massey and summer intern Abbie Pool, and assess the types of biometric information they collect, their purposes and existing transparency measures to identify any areas for potential change.

Massey and Pool recommend that businesses should also take note of overseas developments, including the EU’s draft artificial intelligence statute proposing to restrict certain uses of biometric technology, including live facial recognition technology in public places and a recent executive order made by US President Joe Biden, warning of the risks of those living with disabilities receiving “unequal treatment from the use of biometric data like gaze direction, eye tracking, gait analysis and hand motions”.

Before any biometrics code is issued, the OPC says it will run a further period of formal consultation. Comprehensive guidance will be developed for agencies using biometrics, covering how they can comply with the proposed code rules and the information privacy principles in the Act. ■

Renowned for our commitment to excellence, innovation, and candidate service, the experienced team at Artemis knows how to find the right job for you. We recognise that each lawyer brings a unique set of skills, experiences, and perspectives. Whether you’re a seasoned litigator, a budding corporate lawyer, or an aspiring IP specialist, we offer a wide range of legal positions tailored to your expertise and career aspirations.

Here’s a small selection of our current roles: Inhouse opportunities – too many to list!

• Senior Legal Counsel – (Corporate/Commercial) – 5+ PQE, Auckland • Senior Legal Counsel 12-month FTC, Auckland • Legal Counsel – 1 - 5 PQE, Auckland • Senior Legal Counsel – Regulatory 5+ PQE, Blenheim Law Firm opportunities galore – from small to large firms • Insolvency & Commercial Litigators – 2 – 10 PQE, General Practice, North Shore • Corporate and Commercial Lawyers – 2 – 8 PQE, Auckland • Senior Associate Property – from 5+ PQE, Auckland • Family Lawyer – Int/Snr – Tauranga • Employment Lawyers – Wellington • Commercial lawyers – Queenstown Partnership/Director opportunities • General commercial practice – Whitianga • Employment Law – Auckland, Hamilton & Tauranga • General property & business law – Pukekohe • Construction – Auckland Want to know more?

For a confidential conversation about the roles or to hear about what else is available, please contact: Kathryn Cross BMus LLB 027 700 8049 | kathryn.cross@artemisnz.com Lara Gordon BA LLB (Hons) 027 349 6352 | lara.gordon@artemisnz.com Whether you’re committed to finding a great new role, or simply curious about your career options, please contact us for a confidential chat – we would be delighted to assist you.

At Artemis Executive Recruitment, we connect remarkable people with great places to work.

15

COMMITTEES

Meet Stella Chan, co-convenor Property Law committee This legislation has had, and continues to have, a huge impact on lawyers’ working lives. There is a lot of compliance and there are still areas that are not well understood by a lot of practitioners Brenda Newth Where do you work, what’s your role?

I’m the founding partner of Forest Harrison. We’re a three-partner firm, based in downtown Auckland.

Where did you study?

I finished my law degree part-time at the University of Auckland, while working as a legal executive. I completed my LLB in six-and-a half-years, while working full time, running a home and being mum to two children.

What’s been your career to date?

I started working in the legal field when I joined Neumegen & Company as a secretary. I got my legal executive qualification while working, then joined Ellis Gould as a legal executive. In 1999, after finishing my degree, I began working as a lawyer in the same firm.

After a couple of years, I moved to Simpson Grierson and later Blackwells, to be closer to my children. Then in 2006 I founded Forest Harrison with a colleague.

How long have you been involved with The Law Association committees and which committees have you worked with?

I have been involved with the Property Law committee for a long time, more recently as coconvenor, and joined the AML/CFT committee when it was formed a few years ago.

Why is committee work important?

It is important in many ways. We do submissions in different areas of proposed amendments to legislation or bills relating to property. The committee also works with a range of government agencies and other stakeholders to develop solutions to a range of property law issues. For example, the committee 16

was invited to work closely with LINZ from the beginning to plan for the change to the Landonline system. The committee made submissions on many bills and amendments to regulations, including urgent enactments during the covid pandemic in the property law area. Property law usually affects a large number of people, so it is important that submissions are made and our voices are heard. Overall, it’s important that Law Association committees represent the legal profession and make submissions on proposed bills.

How do The Law Association committees make a difference?

Through submissions, as outlined previously. We also write articles and sometimes communicate with our fellow practitioners and other stakeholders to raise topical issues that they should be aware of.

How do you see the role of a committee convenor? What specific skills do you think a convenor needs?

Our committee members are fellow practitioners so for me it’s more about the process of the meetings.

For example, making sure the agenda is run through, the minutes prepared and timelines set to make sure certain jobs are done. Eliciting views, making sure that all voices are heard.

What is your biggest frustration as a convenor?

I don’t have frustration as such. But balancing between my regular work and pro bono commitments such as involvement in the committee can be challenging.

What’s been the most notable achievement or biggest focus of your

Stella Chan

committee over the past few years? Why was that important?

We’ve done so much. The LINZ project was important and some of us were involved right from day one. I believe points in our submissions were heard – for example, amendments to the Unit Titles Act and its regulations. We also work with the Documents and Precedents committee to create or improve WebForms.

Over the past year, has your committee made submissions on a parliamentary bill or any consultation paper?

The committee worked on submissions for the review of the Retirement Villages Act 2003.

The committee has also made submissions on various matters, including: ■ income tax – forfeited deposits from cancelled land sale agreements ■ Residential Property Managers Bill ■ Unit Titles Act 2010 regulations ■ The Incorporated Societies Act Regulations 2023 ■ PLS guidelines ■ Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill ■ regulation of residential property managers – regulatory options We have had a joint event with the Environment &

Continued on page 17

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 16

What’s the best kept secret about The Law Association?

I found it very interesting.

Resource Management committee and the Property Disputes committee to enable the committee members to meet and know more about each committee’s work.

Almost half our members are outside Auckland. We’re truly representing the law profession within New Zealand. That’s why we changed our name.

What is your vision for the legal profession in 2050?

What would you say to anyone thinking about being involved in a Law Association committee?

You will be contributing to the legal profession. But at the same time, you will learn a lot.

What do you think is the biggest issue facing your practice area and how is it impacting on lawyers and clients?

I think it is keeping good talent and having good staff to support your work. Our firm specialises in working for Asian clients, so we need people with language skills, making sure we deliver high-quality service with the right staff and supporting team.

The changing economy is also changing the kind of work we are doing – for example, where purchasers can’t settle because they do not have finance. When the economy is not good, there are more files on disputes.

What is the biggest issue facing the legal profession right now?

Technology is evolving quickly, so the way we practise also needs to change. We face other additional tasks such as compliance with anti-money laundering legislation and the requirements imposed on lawyers as a reporting entity. Property lawyers must deal with a lot of other legislation relating to their work, such as overseas investment rules and regulations, the brightline test, resident land withholding tax etc. There are lots of obligations when dealing with property transactions.

Have you done any media interviews/ provided any statements to the media in the past year as a committee convenor and spokesperson for ADLS/The Law Association?

Not in the past year. I had media training recently because I’m the chair of a charitable organisation.

I will have retired! It will be very different. We’re talking about different technology and ways of doing things.

I believe we will not be doing what we do today.

With AI technology, the term “legal profession” may be different by then, as some of our work such as research can easily be done by technology.

What do you think The Law Association could do to improve its offering to members?

I think the association has done quite well in terms of its WebForms system: documents and precedents and its CPD programs. Maybe some “in person” events to allow lawyers to meet among themselves and other professionals to share knowledge and other ideas? ■ To find out more about the professional, collegiality and networking opportunities associated with being involved in Law Association committee work, contact Daniel.Conway@TheLawAssociation.nz or Moira McFarland@TheLawAssociation.nz ■

CPD February 2024 Book now to save the dates Coming soon - Civil Litigation Series: 5 Webinars February - March 2024

Criminal

The Auckland Council Diversion Policy – One Year On 1 February | 1 - 2pm | 1 CPD hour

Sexual Violence Legislation Updates

27 February | 4 - 6.15pm | 2 CPD hours

Family

Guardianship Under CoCA

14 February | 4 - 5.30pm | 1.5 CPD hours

Will Drafting for Blended Families

15 February | 12.30 - 2pm | 1.5 CPD hours

All Areas of Practice

Excel-erate Your Tasks

14 February | 9 - 11am | 2 CPD hours

Business Development for Lawyers

15 February | 9.30 - 11.45am | 2 CPD hours

KiwiSaver for Legal Professionals

20 February | 1 - 2.15pm | 1.25 CPD hours

Applications Made Easy

20 February | 4 - 6.30pm | 2.25 CPD hours

Mastering the Art of Negotiation

22 February | 9am - 12.15pm | 3 CPD hours

How to Lead a Team

27 February | 9am - 1.15pm | 4 CPD hours

Property

The Annual Property Law Conference 2024 29 February | 12.30 - 5pm | 4 CPD hours

TLA CPD half page ad.indd 1

CPD On Demand®

200+ in our library. New packages available.

Continued on page 10 23/11/2023 8:44:54 am

17

REVIEW

The year in review ADLS changes its name to The Law Association, in reflection of its national reach and its more modern ambitions

Every three years, the smiles of political candidates, frozen in time and space on billboards, are defaced with Sharpie-drawn moustaches, sexist comments and racism. Party leaders walk through malls of smartphone-wielding New Zealanders, eager to shake the hands of power and have a selfie to prove it. You’ll notice the dog whistles if you listen closely. And keep an eye out for the photo that captures a politician eating a hot dog, an ice cream or a sausage roll.

A general election provides a backdrop to almost everything that happens during the year it is held – and 2023 was no different. LawNews has looked back at the year that was, from the cyclone-stricken, inundated first few months and a king’s coronation to the removal of the last remnants of pandemic protections and the most recent six weeks (or was it three?) of the” interregnum”.

As the year draws to a close, a hotter, drier summer is on its way – a stark contrast to the deluge that marked the summer of 2022/23. But many of the issues that have characterised this year will persist as 2023 gives way to 2024. Here are some highlights of the past 12 months.

January Severe weather hits the Coromandel and upper North Island on 4 January, forcing people to cut short their holidays and evacuate. Six days later, Cyclone Hale causes flooding and slips, particularly in Coromandel and Gisborne.

Dame Jacinda Ardern on 19 January announces the 2023 general election will be held on 14 October.

More surprisingly, she announces she will resign as prime minister and Labour Party leader, saying she 18

Photo: Mykhaylo/Getty Images

Reweti Kohere

has nothing left in the tank. Days later, Chris Hipkins is elected unopposed as Labour leader and, on 25 January, is sworn in as the 41st prime minister. Carmel Sepuloni is sworn in as deputy prime minister, the first Pasifika person to hold the position.

More heavy rainfall closes out the month, giving way to catastrophic flooding in regions across the upper North Island. In Auckland, an entire summer’s worth of rain falls within one day, in what Niwa characterises as a 1-in-200-year event. Four people die during the weather event.

another wave of severe weather and torrential rain hits New Zealand’s largest city, aggravating the flooding that has occurred in the preceding days. A series of significant, large-scale clean-up operations begin in Auckland, only for Cyclone Gabrielle to hit the North Island on 12 February. A national state of emergency is declared on Valentine’s Day. With damage costing an estimated $14 billion, Gabrielle becomes the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the Southern Hemisphere and the deadliest cyclone and weather event to hit New Zealand.

February

Continued on page 19

Just days after Auckland Anniversary weekend,

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 18 It highlights the pressing issues of climate change and managed retreat, with the government urged to accelerate work on its Climate Adaptation Bill.

March The 2023 census is held on March 7, with field collectors in cyclone-affected areas given an extra eight weeks to reach more people.

A week later, Police Minister Stuart Nash resigns after revelations of interference in police prosecutorial discretion. When other incidents of misconduct are revealed, Nash is stripped of all his remaining ministerial warrants. His ill-discipline kickstarts a trend of several other ministers being publicly pulled up for misconduct, including Kiritapu Allan, Michael Wood and Jan Tinetti.

The legal profession learns how it might be represented and regulated when the independent review panel publishes its recommendations, chief among them the creation of a new, independent watchdog and the incorporation of te Tiriti o Waitangi in an amended Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. ADLS members elect Wellington-based Tony Herring, a commercial and property partner at Gibson Sheat, as president to succeed Marie Dyhrberg KC. ADLS proposes changing its name to The Law Association, in reflection of its national reach and its more modern ambitions. Members ultimately vote in favour of the name change.

April LawNews runs its annual technology issue, with articles from the organisation’s Technology and Law committee highlighting the legal challenges mounted against AI tools, lawyers’ concerns about ChatGPT and other issues. It follows Parliament’s decision in March to ban video-sharing social media app

TikTok on devices with access to its network, citing cybersecurity concerns.

In devastating news, Martelli McKegg senior associate Telise Kelly, recently elected to the ADLS Council and a member of its Family Law committee, passes away after being struck by a vehicle outside the North Shore District Court. Tributes from the profession describe a cheeky, generous and optimistic woman (LawNews issue 13).

As part of Hipkins’ policy bonfire, the government scraps its Three Waters plans to amalgamate the country’s water services into four mega-entities, instead proposing 10 new regional bodies based on existing local authority boundaries and the retention of co-governance arrangements. National and Act quickly reject the revised proposal; National repeats it will restore council ownership and control of the assets.

IRD releases its long-awaited report on the effective tax rate (ETR) that over 300 of New Zealand’s high-wealth families paid relative to their “economic income” between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2021. The IRD concludes the average, GST-inclusive ETR paid by the wealthiest on all sources of income is 9.5%. By comparison, the GST-inclusive ETR for people earning an $80,000 salary is about 30%. But IRD and the government fail to tell taxpayers that unrealised capital gains (or “on paper” gains) were included in the calculation for “rich” New Zealanders, while the calculation for “ordinary” taxpayers did not include this novel way of determining income. Revenue Minister David Parker confirms there will be “no new tax policy or tax switch” because of the report, although it will “provide a fundamental baseline for debate” on the tax system.

2023 budget – the sixth and, ultimately, last budget

by Finance Minister Grant Robertson – focuses on the cost of living and building better infrastructure in the face of climate change. National’s Christopher Luxon slams it as the “blow-out Budget”.

One of the most controversial amendment bills to pass into law in 2023, the Companies (Directors’ Duties) Amendment Bill aimed to clarify and make explicit what directors may consider when making decisions based on the best interests of their company. The reform (which receives royal assent in August) is criticised as a “solution looking for a problem” (LawNews issue 15).

Having acceded to the British throne on 8 September 2022, King Charles III is crowned nearly eight months later in a coronation ceremony at Westminster Abbey. His Majesty remains the sovereign and head of state of New Zealand, yet new research indicates a majority of New Zealanders believe the country would vote to become a republic by 2033.

The Supreme Court’s likely direction in an upcoming fiduciary relationships law case is discussed at ADLS’ Cradle to Grave conference. The Supreme Court in mid-June will hear the “Alphabet case” of A, B & C, concerned with whether an abusive parent, having gifted the bulk of his property to a trust to deliberately thwart any meaningful claims his adult children may have against his estate in the future, continues to owe them fiduciary duties.

June After nearly half a century immersed in the law and 20 years on the bench, District Court Judge Philip Recordon hangs up his gown. The self-described “stirrer” says his legal career has always been “very

May Having ruled out any new taxes, including on wealth or capital gains, the Labour government’s “no-frills”

Continued on page 20

Firm Membership Inquire today

We strive to empower legal professionals in New Zealand to achieve excellence.

And now, you can get even more from membership by signing up as a firm member.

19

Continued from page 19

much [about] the underdog, whatever I did. It was for the people who needed help”.

In one of the Employment Court’s most significant judgments of 2023, Customs is found to have unjustifiably dismissed an employee who refused to get vaccinated against covid-19. Part of Chief Judge Christina Inglis’ reasoning is that Customs, in response to the employee’s vaccination decision, failed to actively engage and apply the very tikanga and tikanga values it had incorporated into its governance and employment relationship documents. The decision continues a recent trend where the courts have engaged meaningfully with “Aotearoa’s first law”.

The Aotearoa Legal Workers’ Union (ALWU) finds the average legal worker in New Zealand is effectively working nearly a day for free each week and is not being paid or formally recognised for their overtime.

Closing out the month, in an election policy announcement, National says it will impose a new 40% cap on sentencing discounts, restore its repealed “Three Strikes” law, remove taxpayer funding for s 27 cultural reports and redirect the funds toward helping victims access support services, and grant remand prisoners access to rehabilitative programs. People spoken to by LawNews question whether Parliament should fetter judicial discretion in the way National suggests.

July On 1 July, New Zealand becomes the first country in the world to ban single-use plastics, including plastic straws and cutlery. The prime minister signs a free trade agreement with the EU on 9 July.

In two court cases that capture the nation’s attention, the Auckland District Court starts hearing health and safety charges following the deadly Whakaari White Island eruption on 9 December 2019, which killed 22 people and left 25 seriously injured.

And in the High Court at Christchurch, 42-year-old doctor Lauren Anne Dickason stands trial for murdering her three young daughters just weeks after emigrating to New Zealand. She pleads not guilty by reason of insanity or infanticide.

Three people are killed in a shooting in Auckland’s CBD on 20 July, including the alleged gunman. One police officer and four other people are injured during the incident.

In an edited version of a recent speech, British Bar Standards Board Director-General Mark Neale makes the case for an independent regulator firmly anchored in the profession and “not a creature of government or Parliament”. The comments follow a period of 20

consultation run on the independent review panel’s recommendations by NZLS, whose council largely accepts in principle the recommendations. NZLS sends its response to the justice minister.

At the end of July, a valedictory sitting is held for retiring Justice Ailsa Duffy. In forceful comments, Duffy laments the continuing failure in New Zealand of poor access to legal services, noting the very barriers she spoke of at her swearing-in ceremony in 2007 have remained “firmly in place”.

August Regional, district and city councils in the Hawke’s Bay and Napier region accept the government’s $556 million cost-sharing agreement to help recover from the destruction of Cyclone Gabrielle.

LawNews runs its inaugural employment law issue, with members from the ADLS Employment Law committee highlighting the employment status of gig economy and religious community workers, when outof-office conduct becomes an employment issue and other issues in the specialist jurisdiction.

By the middle of August, the last remaining covid-19 public health requirements are removed.

After a month-long trial, a majority jury verdict finds Lauren Dickason guilty of murdering her three daughters. She will be sentenced on December 19.

The Supreme Court, by month’s end, releases its eagerly anticipated (and long-awaited) Mainzeal decision on directors’ duties, unanimously finding the company’s directors – including former Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley – breached the Companies Act 1993 and are liable for nearly $40m, plus interest.

Conscious of the impact of its decision on directors and good governance practice, the court outlines the broader implications of its judgment.

September On 8 September, Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro formally dissolves the 53rd Parliament.

Merepaia King (Ngāti Māhanga/Ngāti Te Wehi – Tainui), a former Buddle Findlay partner, on 9 September is sworn in as a judge of the Employment Court – the first Māori judge to be appointed to the specialist bench in its 129 years of operation and the first Employment Court judge to be sworn in on a marae.

A state of emergency is declared in the Gore District, following heavy rain and flooding, and is updated to cover the entire Southland region.

The Law Commission publishes He Poutama, a study paper completing the tikanga Māori project led

by Justice Christian Whata (Ngāti Pikiao and Ngāti Tamateatūtahi).

October The ADLS formally becomes The Law Association.

Delving deeper into the Act Party’s election policy of Parliament defining the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi for the first time, LawNews canvasses the history of the principles, their 21st-century relevance, and broader issues about their place in New Zealand’s constitution.

The country goes to the polls on 14 October.

Preliminary results put National in a prime position to form a government with Act, although unclear is the need for NZ First’s support. Except for Labour, all the other major political parties score increased support.

Judge Evangelos Thomas convicts Whakaari Management Ltd of one health and safety charge relating to the Whakaari White Island eruption. Out of the original 13 defendants charged by WorkSafe, Whakaari Management remained; six had pleaded guilty while six had their charges dismissed.

Former British Supreme Court Justice Lord Jonathan Sumption visits New Zealand. Speaking to a packed house at Chapman Tripp’s Auckland offices, Lord Sumption broaches how the rule of law – one of the most familiar catchphrases in the legal lexicon – should interact with human rights.

November On 3 November, the Electoral Commission concludes vote counting. The official results indicate National and Act do need NZ First to form a government.

After three weeks of negotiations, incoming prime minister Christopher Luxon on 23 November announces an historic three-way coalition with Act and NZ First.

Numerous institutions nationwide, including St Kentigern College, Wellington and Auckland City Hospitals, and the High Court at Auckland, receive email bomb threats, prompting lockdowns and police searches.

Pro-Palestinian protestors block the entrance to the Ports of Auckland, in response to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Police arrest at least six protesters, including criminal barrister Lucy Rogers.

The Port Waikato by-election is held. Preliminary results indicate National’s Andrew Bayly wins by a landslide, receiving just over 14,000 votes and more than doubling his 2020 margin of 4,313 votes.

Christopher Luxon on 27 November is sworn in as the 42nd Prime Minister by Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro. The executive council is sworn in. The sixth National government begins.

December The opening of the 54th session of Parliament takes place on 5 and 6 December. ■

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 09

SUPREME COURT

20th Anniversary Conference 15 and 16 February 2024 Pullman Hotel, Auckland

Over the last 18 months, we’ve successfully facilitated the sale of five law firms.

Legal Business Sale Specialists WHY CHOOSE US? Expertise • Proven Success • Tailored Approach • Confidentiality If you are looking at selling your Law Practice and are curious about the value of your business call me today for a confidential discussion.

Nick Stevens 021 641 978 nick.stevens@linkbusiness.co.nz

All LINK Offices Are Licenced REA08

and living areas with the tenant and could go into the premises at will.

Kee rejected that claim. “It was simply not part of the agreement, nor would it be acceptable for the landlord to just wander into the premises.”

After outlining the tribunal’s legal jurisdiction, Kee said the RTA did apply to the parties.

The $4,000 emotional harm award was made after the tenant told the tribunal she suffered significantly as a result of the landlord’s treatment of her and was hospitalised with high blood pressure because of the impact of the events on her stress levels. She says her mental health was fragile already and she was also dealing with the effects of the domestic violence situation at the time.

When deciding on the amount to award for emotional harm, Kee says the effect on the tenant was significant – “worry, stress, frustration, anxiety, humiliation and insecurity”. He considered Nice Place Property v Ogbourne and Couzens [2017] NZTT 4046775; 4052092 which set out bands for emotional harm. Under the bands, the case was at “the upper end of the scale and an award of more than $3,000 is appropriate”.

The landlord was also ordered to pay the tenant $2,164 for unlawful notice and harassment. Kee said the notice was retaliatory, especially when the landlord knew she was not entitled to give it. “Attempting to end a tenancy immediately is a fundamental breach. It is a repudiation of the contract. It is an attempt to deprive the tenant of their right to occupation of their home forthwith.”

The landlord also had to pay $187.50 in exemplary damages for not having a written tenancy agreement, $100 in exemplary damages for unlawfully entering the property, $900 for interfering with the water and power, despite denying it and not offering any alternative theory as to who else could have done it, $188.57 for two days without utilities and $18 for the hot water cylinder fuse.

As the landlord and tenant had fallen into acrimonious dispute, particularly after the power and water were cut off, Kee says the landlord had a motive, the opportunity and knowledge of the premises to carry out interference to the power and water. “The public interest favours orders to punish and deter this landlord and others from committing such flagrant breaches of their duties.”

Kee said at the root of the fallout in this case was the landlord’s failure to engage with the RTA. “It is in the public interest that landlords fully accept their landlord responsibilities. The landlord is an intelligent and decent person.

It is unlikely this situation will recur, given the tribunal’s deterrent orders. If the landlord were to come before the tribunal again, the tribunal itself still has the landlord’s name and the tenancy address and non-publication [of her name] is unlikely to be granted again.” ■ Sally Lindsay is an Auckland business journalist specialising in property ■

0800 546 528 LINKBUSINESS.CO.NZ

WILL INQUIRIES Please refer to deeds clerk. Please check your records and advise The Law Association Inc. 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@thelawassociation.nz

The Law Association Inc.

PO Box 58, Shortland Street, DX CP24001, Auckland 1140 Ph: (09) 303 5270

ELLIS Neil William • Late of 1/10 Gerbic Place, Mt Roskill, Auckland • Kitchen steward/musician • Aged 62 / Died 08’11’23

Register Here 21

TECHNOLOGY

Using AI in legal businesses: advancements, risks and data handling Recognise that while AI tools are powerful aids, they should complement rather than replace human legal expertise and judgment

Lloyd Gallagher Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming much of how we do business and the legal industry is no exception. Integrating AI tools into various aspects of legal practice is becoming standard and a surge of new technology has developed, aimed at increasing efficiency.

These advanced technologies offer immense potential to streamline operations, optimise research processes and deliver valuable insights for legal professionals. However, along with these benefits it is crucial to address the potential risks associated with AI tools and their implementation, especially around data privacy and security. Here we will explore the AI tools commonly used in legal businesses, delve into the importance of data handling and highlight the risks and measures to mitigate them.

AI tools for legal businesses Document review and analysis AI-powered tools like contract analysis platforms and eDiscovery solutions are widely used in legal businesses for document review and analysis. These tools utilise natural language processing (NLP) algorithms to extract relevant information, identify key clauses and categorise documents efficiently. Microsoft, IBM, Relativity, Kira Systems and ROSS Intelligence all provide solutions in document analysis to deliver due diligence and analysis to assist with efficiency.

Legal research AI-driven legal research tools have transformed the way legal professionals find case law, statutes and regulatory information.

Platforms such as Westlaw Edge, LexisNexis and Casetext leverage AI algorithms to deliver precise and relevant search results.

Predictive analytics Litigation analytics tools enable legal businesses to make informed decisions by predicting case outcomes and trends. These tools analyse historical data to provide valuable insights on judges’ tendencies, opposing counsel strategies and case success rates. Lex 22

Machina and Premonition are leading examples.

Contract management AI-powered contract lifecycle management tools simplify the contract management process, automating tasks like contract creation, review and renewal. Notable platforms include Ironclad, Agiloft and ContractZen. Virtual legal assistants AI-driven virtual assistants such as Della and Eva help legal professionals with administrative tasks, appointment scheduling and basic client inquiries.

The advantages of AI tools in legal businesses Enhanced efficiency: AI-powered tools, like document review platforms and virtual legal assistants, expedite mundane tasks, freeing up valuable time for legal professionals to focus on more complex and strategic matters.

Informed decision-making: Predictive analytics and legal research platforms provide data-driven insights, empowering legal practitioners to make well-informed decisions, optimise litigation strategies and assess case outcomes with greater accuracy.

Improved client service: AI-driven contract management and research tools enable legal businesses to respond promptly to clients’ needs, enhancing overall client satisfaction and fostering stronger relationships.

Cost-effectiveness: Automation through AI can lead to reduced operational costs, benefiting both legal businesses and their clients by potentially lowering legal fees.

The benefit of using AI tools is clear. They provide invaluable resources to cut down human hours and offer insights quickly and efficiently. Insights that may be overlooked and data analysis that would usually require a team trenching through large volumes of information at great expense are easily handled by AI and the time saved using machine-based systems assists with access to justice.

However, AI tools are not without their pitfalls. While an AI system can deal with large volumes, it has limitations. For example, when it writes documents or articles, it will produce results that are junior in approach. The final form is similar to that of an American undergraduate or legal executive, which is below the quality many practitioners would expect. Below, I will discuss the quality, risks and limitations of using AI tools.

Continued on page 23

Lloyd Gallagher

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 22 The quality of AI When AI is asked a question, it accesses a pool of resources to formulate the result. This pool is limited in a number of ways. The pool of resources is based on the training data limitations, a lack of understanding as to what is typed, a narrow focus during the training (ie, the questions were not broad enough or the answers were not clear enough), the ambiguity and context challenges, creative and critical thinking limitations and an inability to learn from experience.

These limitations mean the person training the AI must have a great understanding of how people and computers will engage with the information being inputted. If there is a lack of knowledge in this area or if the information is not clear enough for the resulting queries within the systems that AI uses, the result will be poor and clumsy.

Currently, AI is trained around an American model of knowledge, meaning the academic approach from the United States is the approach that AI is learning, leaving a series of systems that is designed around an undergraduate approach from an American perspective in the resulting articles, documents and analysis that are being written by AI. This results in an end-of-use product that would be considered to be junior or from an early entrant into the legal industry. Therefore, while AI can provide a number of efficiencies to quickly get information before a senior, the information still needs to be reviewed, edited, cleaned and checked for accuracy before the final product is released.

In many ways, AI must be considered on the same basis of any tool: it is just that, a tool. While it can provide a number of benefits, efficiencies and speed to any process within a law firm, it is unlikely it will ever be able to replace the senior lawyer with experience and knowledge of the law.

There are many reasons for this: the law is ever-evolving, twists and turns happen in cases, judgments do not always follow a standard set of human inquiry and training AI will always lag behind the evolution of society. That said, simple-form contract and efficiencies can be created using AI tools because of AI’s speed and efficiency in creating a draft.

Just like speech to text, the information being placed on the paper is only as good as the information it is drawn upon or the speech recognition being used. AI is a tool and should never be considered as a replacement for the human approach.

Now that we understand how AI operates, the efficiencies it can provide and its quality limitations, we can look at the risks this poses for law firms.

Risks of using AI tools in legal businesses Recently a lawyer in the United States used ChatGPT to run his legal research which was submitted to the court. The lawyer claimed he was unaware that the information AI could obtain could be false. He assumed the result from AI was legitimate and true and that he did not need to take any other due diligence to confirm what was being written.

The argument failed because ChatGPT has a fall-back position where AI stipulates that the information could be incorrect or

inaccurate. However, the lawyer continued to rely on the result and submitted it to the court as accurate with an AI argument that was very compelling. It was not until the opposition requested the production of the authority that the information came unstuck.

Several questionable issues have arisen with the use of AI in similar industries. Results that have been put forward as legitimate have led industries and lawyers to consider what they need to be aware of when using AI tools.

Data privacy and security One of the primary risks associated with AI tools in legal businesses is the handling of sensitive client data. Data breaches or unauthorised access to legal documents can lead to severe legal consequences and tarnish the firm’s reputation.

■ AI tools employed for document review and analysis often require access to large volumes of sensitive legal data. To address data privacy concerns, legal businesses must ensure data encryption during storage and transmission, implement role-based access controls and conduct regular audits to monitor data usage.

■ Legal research platforms handle vast amounts of legal data. To protect client confidentiality, these tools must employ robust security measures, including secure data centres, encryption and compliance with industry standards such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for international data transfers.

■ Predictive analytics tools depend on historical case data, making data anonymisation crucial to protect client identities.

Additionally, maintaining data accuracy and updating the AI models regularly are essential to ensure accurate predictions and mitigate biases.

■ Contract management tools process sensitive contract data, including proprietary terms and conditions. Implementing strong access controls, data encryption, and multi-factor authentication (MFA), is essential to safeguard this data from unauthorised access.

■ Virtual assistants require access to personal information and calendars. Legal businesses must ensure secure data transmission and enforce strict data-retention policies to protect client privacy.

■ All the data listed above is sensitive in nature as it provides information on where people will be located, information on cases that may hold sensitive data and information that is often privileged and not wanted in any other media but a secure server.

This has given rise to questions about the way data is handled by the provider, where that data is stored and how it is accessed, shared or used for training AI, which are questions yet-to-be answered by many firms but have prompted privacy policies.

The result from ChatGPT is clear: open AI has a policy that prevents use of information and retention beyond the current conversation.

However, even AI appears unaware of how data is used in its own training. While it confirms it strips personal data, it is unclear what is considered personal.

Personal information can often relate to data that could be used to identify another – this information is not considered personal under

Litigation analytics tools enable legal businesses to make informed decisions by predicting case outcomes and trends

Continued on page 24 23

Continued from page 23 the policies and still gives rise to questions about the way data is being stored and retained and how it is used in its training, which is a big issue for law firms and cannot be taken lightly. Accordingly, while AI tools provide great benefit for law firms, care must be taken as to how they are used and what information is provided to the AI engine or bot.

Other considerations are also required when implementing any form of AI in your business. These include the quality of results from AI, as many results show there is a level of bias, issues of accuracy and liability risks as well as ethical concerns. Below we will explore some of these concerns.

Bias and fairness: AI algorithms may perpetuate biases present in the data used to train them, as well as historical results that AI has obtained. Many biases still exist within the legal environment, based on statistical data and old judgments that remain in authority, which may lead to unfair outcomes and decisions. Legal businesses must actively monitor and address biases to ensure fair and just practices.

Accuracy and liability: AI tools are not error-proof, and relying solely on AI-generated information without proper verification can lead to incorrect advice and potential legal liability.

Ethical concerns: AI’s application in legal matters raises ethical questions, especially when it comes to the use of AI in critical decisions concerning human rights, civil liberties and sensitive personal matters.

Over-reliance on AI: While AI tools enhance efficiency, legal professionals should not entirely rely on them. Human expertise and judgment remain crucial in complex legal matters, requiring a balanced approach.

Expanding on the risks: how do we mitigate?

Data breaches AI tools often rely on large datasets to learn and improve their performance. This data might include confidential client information, financial records, medical history and other personal details. A data breach where this sensitive data is exposed or stolen can lead to severe repercussions, such as identity theft, financial fraud and damage to the client’s reputation.

Mitigation: Legal businesses must implement robust data encryption, employ secure data-storage practices and regularly update security protocols. Additionally, having a well-defined incident response plan can help in promptly addressing and containing data breaches if they occur.

Inadequate data anonymisation AI algorithms used in legal businesses often rely on historical case data, which might include identifiable information about clients and parties involved. Improper anonymisation of this data can lead to unintended identification, violating client privacy and confidentiality.

Mitigation: Legal businesses should ensure AI training data is thoroughly anonymised before being used in AI models. Techniques like differential privacy can help protect individual identities while maintaining data accuracy for AI learning.

Cross-platform data sharing AI tools may require data integration from multiple sources, which 24

could lead to cross-platform data sharing. When data from different systems is combined, the risk of privacy breaches increases, especially if proper consent is not obtained from the individuals concerned.

Mitigation: Legal businesses must have clear data-sharing agreements with third-party AI tool providers, ensuring data is shared only for specific and legitimate purposes. Additionally, explicit consent should be obtained from clients before sharing their data with AI tool vendors.

Profiling and surveillance Some AI tools, particularly in predictive analytics, might inadvertently lead to profiling and surveillance concerns. AI algorithms may analyse client data and behaviours, potentially identifying patterns and characteristics that could be misused or lead to discriminatory practices.

Mitigation: Legal businesses must conduct thorough impact assessments before deploying AI tools. It is essential to regularly audit AI models for bias and discriminatory outcomes and implement necessary corrections to ensure fairness and compliance with dataprotection regulations.

Lack of transparency AI algorithms often work as “black boxes”, making it challenging to understand how they arrive at specific conclusions or decisions. This lack of transparency can raise concerns about the handling of client data and decision-making processes.

Mitigation: Legal businesses should strive to use AI tools that provide interpretable results and maintain transparency with clients about the use of AI in their cases. Educating clients about the benefits and limitations of AI can foster trust and mitigate privacy concerns.

The adoption of AI tools in legal businesses not only presents privacy and ethical concerns but also introduces legal risks that must be carefully navigated. These risks can have serious implications for legal practitioners and their clients, potentially leading to legal challenges and liabilities. Let’s explore the legal risks associated with AI in legal businesses: Malpractice and professional responsibility When legal professionals rely heavily on AI tools for critical decisionmaking, there is a risk of misconduct if errors or inaccuracies occur. Lawyers have a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in handling their clients’ cases. If AI tools lead to negligent advice or inappropriate legal actions, the legal business could face misconduct claims and reputational damage.

Mitigation: Legal practitioners should exercise caution when using AI tools and verify their results before making decisions. They must also maintain communication with clients, ensuring AI-generated advice is appropriately explained and supplemented with human expertise.

Compliance with legal standards AI tools must comply with various legal standards, including dataprotection laws, intellectual property rights and industry-specific regulations. Failure to adhere to these legal requirements can lead to

Continued on page 25

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Continued from page 24 legal actions, fines and sanctions.

Mitigation: Legal businesses should conduct thorough due diligence before adopting AI tools. Ensuring the tools comply with relevant laws and regulations can help mitigate potential legal risks.

Intellectual property infringement Some AI tools might be developed using proprietary algorithms or datasets. If legal businesses use such tools without proper authorisation or licensing agreements, they could be at risk of infringing intellectual property rights, leading to legal disputes and financial penalties.

Mitigation: Legal businesses should carefully review the terms of use and licensing agreements associated with AI tools. Seeking legal advice when unsure about the intellectual property rights of AI vendors can help avoid infringement issues.

Lack of legal oversight As AI tools become more sophisticated, there might be a lack of legal oversight and clear regulations governing their use. This ambiguity can lead to uncertainty and potential legal challenges about the validity and admissibility of AI-generated evidence in court.

Mitigation: Legal practitioners should stay informed about the legal landscape surrounding AI tools and their application in the legal field.

Engaging in professional discussions and seeking guidance from legal associations can contribute to shaping clearer legal guidelines.

Bias and discrimination in AI algorithms AI algorithms might inadvertently perpetuate biases present in the data used for training, leading to discriminatory outcomes. If these biases result in unequal treatment or unfair practices, legal businesses could face discrimination claims.

Mitigation: Legal businesses should proactively audit AI algorithms for bias and implement corrective measures. Employing diverse and inclusive datasets during AI training can also help reduce the risk of biased outcomes.

In this next section, we will look at how AI can be cautiously embraced to enhance your legal business.

Navigating AI in legal businesses As discussed above, AI is not without its risks and problems.

Integrating AI tools into legal businesses has undeniably transformed the legal landscape, offering numerous advantages such as streamlined processes, improved research capabilities and datadriven insights.

However, the benefits of AI must be approached with caution, as AI also introduces inherent risks that demand thoughtful consideration and responsible implementation. In this section, we explore the potential benefits and risks of using AI in legal businesses and argue that a cautious approach is essential to ensure ethical, legal and privacy standards are upheld.

To summarise, the risks of AI in legal businesses are as follows: Data privacy and security: AI tools often require access to vast amounts of sensitive client data, raising concerns about potential data breaches and unauthorised access.

Bias and fairness: AI algorithms can perpetuate biases present in historical data, leading to unfair outcomes and discriminatory

practices in legal decisions.

Legal compliance: The complex legal landscape surrounding AI necessitates careful adherence to data-protection laws, intellectual property rights and other regulations to avoid legal liability and penalties.

Ethical considerations: Employing AI in sensitive legal matters may raise ethical dilemmas about the role of technology in making critical decisions that impact human rights and civil liberties.

The path forward While embracing AI tools can undoubtedly bolster legal businesses’ efficiency and effectiveness, a cautious approach is crucial to mitigate potential risks and ensure ethical practices. Legal practitioners should: ■ prioritise data privacy. Implement robust data encryption, access controls and regular audits to safeguard client information and prevent data breaches.

■ address bias and transparency. Proactively audit AI algorithms for bias, strive for algorithmic transparency and use diverse and inclusive datasets to promote fair and unbiased outcomes.

■ stay informed and compliant. Keep abreast of evolving legal regulations and ensure AI tools comply with relevant laws and industry standards.

■ supplement AI with human expertise. Recognise that while AI tools are powerful aids, they should complement rather than replace human legal expertise and judgment.

The legal industry can only benefit from AI tools which have brought transformative advancements to the profession, improving efficiency, accuracy and client service.

However, the risks associated with AI, including data privacy, bias, legal compliance and ethical considerations must not be underestimated. A cautious approach to AI implementation, coupled with proactive measures to address potential risks, will enable legal businesses to harness the benefits of AI responsibly while safeguarding client privacy, upholding ethical standards and maintaining compliance with legal regulations.

Ultimately, a thoughtful and cautious embrace of AI will ensure the legal industry continues to evolve in a manner that serves the best interests of both legal practitioners and their clients.

Conclusion AI tools offer remarkable advantages for legal businesses, ranging from streamlined document management to data-driven insights. However, the risks of breach of data privacy and security, biases, over-reliance, inaccuracy and ethical concerns must be acknowledged and addressed diligently.

By implementing robust data-handling practices, regularly auditing AI models for biases, and maintaining a balance between human expertise and AI assistance, legal businesses can harness the potential of AI responsibly, ensuring the best outcomes for their clients while upholding ethical and legal standards. ■ Lloyd Gallagher is managing partner at Gallagher & Co and convenor of The Law Association’s Technology and Law committee ■ The above is part of a white paper on technology, released this week by The Law Association. Read the full white paper here

When AI is asked a question, it accesses a pool of resources to formulate the result

25

FEATURED CPD

FINAL NOTICE

WEBINAR ALL LEVELS CRIMINAL/CIVIL

Evidence law update for civil and criminal lawyers Webinar 2 CPD hours Tuesday 12 December 4pm – 6.15pm Price from $190 + GST Presenters Scott Optican, Associate Professor, University of Auckland and Jack Oliver-Hood, barrister/lecturer (AUT Law School)

Whether you are a civil or criminal law practitioner, it is important to keep up-to-date on developments in the law of evidence. Presented by evidence law lecturers and two of the co-authors of Mahoney on Evidence: Act & Analysis (Thomson Reuters, 2018), our annual evidence law update returns in December.

FIND OUT MORE

The Auckland Council diversion policy – One Year On WEBINAR ALL LEVELS CRIMINAL

Webinar 1 CPD hour Thursday 1 February 2024 1pm – 2pm Price from $95 + GST Presenters John Kang, principal solicitor and prosecutions team leader, Auckland Council and Steven Boon, prosecutor and diversion officer, Auckland Council

On 1 December 2022, Auckland Council’s diversion policy was implemented, bringing about crucial changes to the way criminal cases could be handled. This new policy could profoundly impact your clients’ outcomes by providing them with opportunities to avoid convictions. This webinar offers a unique opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge from an authoritative source within Auckland Council’s prosecution team.

Chair Jo Murdoch, Public Defence Service FIND OUT MORE

Excel-erate your tasks WORKSHOP ALL LEVELS ALL AREAS

Workshop 2 CPD hours Wednesday 14 February 2024 9am – 11am Price from $320 + GST Presenter Sally Ratapu, project support/technology learning advisor, Simpson Grierson

Join us for an enlightening workshop led by Sally Ratapu, a seasoned project support/technology learning advisor at Simpson Grierson. Through a curated toolkit of tips, tricks and practical case scenarios tailored for this session, Sally will guide you through the maze of Excel.

FIND OUT MORE 26

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

thelawassociation.nz

Guardianship under CoCA

CPD@thelawassociation.nz

Webinar 1.5 CPD hours Wednesday 14 February 4pm – 5:30pm Price from $140 + GST Presenters Judge Belinda Pidwell and Cushla Webster, barrister, O’Connell Chambers Chair Brian Carter, barrister

09 303 5278

This seminar, with bench and bar perspectives, aims to provide direction and insights into what evidence is essential, and what is useful, for determining guardianship disputes.

WEBINAR ALL LEVELS FAMILY

FIND OUT MORE

Business development for lawyers WORKSHOP ALL LEVELS ALL AREAS

Workshop 1.5 CPD hours Thursday 15 February 2024 9.30am – 11.45am Price from $320 + GST Facilitator Ben Paul, CEO, The BD Ladder

This workshop offers a practical, end-to-end guide to planning and delivering effective business development.

FIND OUT MORE

Will drafting for blended families WEBINAR ALL LEVELS WILLS

Webinar 1.5 CPD hours Thursday 15 February 12.30pm – 2pm Price from $140 + GST Presenters Henry Stokes, group general counsel & company secretariat, Perpetual Guardian and Theresa Donnelly, legal services manager, Perpetual Guardian

Presented by two experts, this webinar will highlight the issues, the considerations that apply and how to address them, and case law to reflect what can happen when things go wrong.

FIND OUT MORE 27

Retirement dinner for Sue Keppel More than 50 current and former judges and members of the profession gathered at the Hotel Britomart in downtown Auckland on Wednesday 19 November for a dinner to celebrate Sue Keppel’s 12 years as CEO of ADLS/The Law Association. Sue, who will retire at Christmas, has been awarded a life membership of The Law Association.

Tony Herring, Sue Keppel and Paul Collins

28

Matthew Casey KC and Frank Godinet

Angela Parlane, Julie-Anne Kincade KC, Samira Taghavi and Jacque Lethbridge

Catherine Stewart and Judge Anna Fitzgibbon

Sue Keppel and Raynor Asher KC

Dec 8, 2023 Issue 44

Tony Herring, Marie Dyhrberg KC, Sue Keppel, Joanna Pidgeon, Judge Anna Fitzgibbon and Frank Godinet

Norman Elliott, Jonathan Flaws and Bernard Smith

Gerard Molloy and Sue Keppel

Sue Keppel and Peter Kiely

Judge Kathryn Beck, Judge Robyn von Keisenberg and Judge Anna Fitzgibbon

29