0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
69 Ansichten19 Seiten
New Zealand Lawyers Disciplinary Tribunal decision 5 April 2012 dismissing charges against Cheryl Simes relating to legal work by her non-lawyer employees in 2009. The Legal Services Agency complained to the law society. The law society's Canterbury-Westland Standards Committee alleged that Mrs Simes failed to supervise her employees while she was overseas for 3 weeks. In fact she supervised them from a distance, using technology. The Tribunal confirmed that Mrs Simes had an adequate system of supervision in place and that there was no evidence of a breach of her obligations while she was overseas. Mrs Simes was also charged with allowing her non-lawyer employees to do legal work that breached section 24 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The Tribunal found there was no evidence that the non-lawyers had provided legal advice about the direction and management of Court proceedings. (Providing other legal advice would not be a breach.) The Tribunal also confirmed that adequate supervision did not necessarily require each drafted document to be checked. The Tribunal also agreed with Mrs Simes' submissions that s24 did not restrict the work that could be done by a non-lawyer employed by a lawyer, but only applied to non-lawyers who were servicing their own clients and acting independently of a lawyer employer. It is unfortunate that it took from November 2009 until April 2012 for this to be resolved, because in the meantime - because of the alleged breaches - both the Legal Services Agency and the New Zealand Law Society had taken adverse action against Mrs Simes (or, more accurately, in the case of the law society, had delayed taking beneficial action).
Originaltitel
[2012] NZLCDT 4 Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Simes - disciplinary decision re supervision of legal practice while overseas
New Zealand Lawyers Disciplinary Tribunal decision 5 April 2012 dismissing charges against Cheryl Simes relating to legal work by her non-lawyer employees in 2009. The Legal Services Agency complained to the law society. The law society's Canterbury-Westland Standards Committee alleged that Mrs Simes failed to supervise her employees while she was overseas for 3 weeks. In fact she supervised them from a distance, using technology. The Tribunal confirmed that Mrs Simes had an adequate system of supervision in place and that there was no evidence of a breach of her obligations while she was overseas. Mrs Simes was also charged with allowing her non-lawyer employees to do legal work that breached section 24 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The Tribunal found there was no evidence that the non-lawyers had provided legal advice about the direction and management of Court proceedings. (Providing other legal advice would not be a breach.) The Tribunal also confirmed that adequate supervision did not necessarily require each drafted document to be checked. The Tribunal also agreed with Mrs Simes' submissions that s24 did not restrict the work that could be done by a non-lawyer employed by a lawyer, but only applied to non-lawyers who were servicing their own clients and acting independently of a lawyer employer. It is unfortunate that it took from November 2009 until April 2012 for this to be resolved, because in the meantime - because of the alleged breaches - both the Legal Services Agency and the New Zealand Law Society had taken adverse action against Mrs Simes (or, more accurately, in the case of the law society, had delayed taking beneficial action).
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
New Zealand Lawyers Disciplinary Tribunal decision 5 April 2012 dismissing charges against Cheryl Simes relating to legal work by her non-lawyer employees in 2009. The Legal Services Agency complained to the law society. The law society's Canterbury-Westland Standards Committee alleged that Mrs Simes failed to supervise her employees while she was overseas for 3 weeks. In fact she supervised them from a distance, using technology. The Tribunal confirmed that Mrs Simes had an adequate system of supervision in place and that there was no evidence of a breach of her obligations while she was overseas. Mrs Simes was also charged with allowing her non-lawyer employees to do legal work that breached section 24 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The Tribunal found there was no evidence that the non-lawyers had provided legal advice about the direction and management of Court proceedings. (Providing other legal advice would not be a breach.) The Tribunal also confirmed that adequate supervision did not necessarily require each drafted document to be checked. The Tribunal also agreed with Mrs Simes' submissions that s24 did not restrict the work that could be done by a non-lawyer employed by a lawyer, but only applied to non-lawyers who were servicing their own clients and acting independently of a lawyer employer. It is unfortunate that it took from November 2009 until April 2012 for this to be resolved, because in the meantime - because of the alleged breaches - both the Legal Services Agency and the New Zealand Law Society had taken adverse action against Mrs Simes (or, more accurately, in the case of the law society, had delayed taking beneficial action).
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen