Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Legal Complaints Review Officer |
Last Updated: 16 January 2020
LCRO 74/2018
CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
AND
CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X]
BETWEEN PG
Applicant
AND EJ
Respondent
DECISION
The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been
changed.
Introduction
[1] Ms PG has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] (the Committee) to take no further action in respect of her complaint concerning the conduct of Ms EJ, at the relevant time a partner with [CCW] Law (the firm).
[2] Ms EJ had acted for Ms PG’s mother, Mrs SC, on matters including preparing enduring powers of attorney (both property, and personal care and welfare), and a will. Following Mrs SC’s death, Ms EJ, as sole executor and trustee pursuant to Mrs SC’s will, applied for probate and acted in the administration of Mrs SC’s estate.
[3] Ms PG is the eldest of three children from Mrs SC’s first marriage, the other two children from that marriage being VW and OB. Ms PG says she has a half-brother, CT from Mrs SC’s second marriage, and a stepsister, HB.
[4] Ms PG explained that from a relatively early age she lived with her grandparents, Mrs SC’s parents, for 10 years or so. She says she married in 1975, and moved to [Country] with her husband in 1988.
[5] Ms PG says her attempts, in her late teens/early 20s, to reconnect with Mrs SC
were met without success.
[6] Having had intermittent contact (by phone) with Mrs SC during the 1990s, Ms PG says from 2000, when Mrs SC was 70, she increased contact (by phone) with Mrs SC, and visited Mrs SC in New Zealand accompanied by [Ms PG’s] daughter in 2014.
[7] Ms EJ began acting for Mrs SC around 2010. In May 2015 Ms EJ prepared a will for Mrs SC, signed on 19 May 2015, in which Mrs SC (a) appointed Ms EJ sole executor and trustee, (b) left pecuniary legacies of $3,000 to each of Ms PG, VW, OB, CT, and HB, and $10,000 to a friend, (c) established a fund of $20,000 for the care of her pets, and (d) provided for the residue to be divided equally between two charities.1
[8] By that time, or soon thereafter, Mrs SC had moved from her house to a rest home. Mrs SC died on 14 July 2015. Ms EJ applied for probate of Mrs SC’s will which was granted on 11 November 2015.
[9] On 1 August 2016, Ms PG, VW and CT applied to the Family Court, under the Family Protection Act 1955, for further provision from Mrs SC’s estate (the family protection proceedings). A settlement was reached, recorded in a consent order dated
3 October 2017, whereby Ms PG, VW and CT each received $195,000 from Mrs SC’s estate.2
Complaint
[10] Ms PG lodged a complaint with the Lawyers Complaints Service on 21 February
2018, accompanied by her letter dated 22 January 2018 to Ms EJ, in which she raised concerns about (a) “the manner” in which Ms EJ “conducted” herself in her “dealings/interactions” with Mrs SC when alive, and (b) about Ms EJ’s conduct when acting as executor of Mrs SC’s will.3
1 Ms PG states OB died in August 2014.
2 PG v EJ FC Waitakere FAM 2016-090-466, [Date] [consent order].
3 Ms PG, complaint (12 February 2018).
(1) Legal fees
[11] Ms PG queried fees invoiced by the firm to Ms EJ as executor of Mrs SC’s
estate:4
(a) $14,860 for the period February 2011 to March 2015 shown as a debit entry on the firm’s Statement of Account (undated) following the sale of Mrs SC’s house in November 2016.
(b) $13,241.50 for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 shown as a debit entry on the same statement.
(c) $4,899.50 (fee component $4,225 plus GST and disbursements) in respect of the sale by auction of Mrs SC’s house shown on a separate invoice (undated), and as a debit entry on the firm’s Statement of Account dated 12 December 2016.
[12] Ms PG also queried the then value of Ms EJ’s work in progress of $16,480
shown on the firm’s Statement of Account dated 31 March 2017.
[13] She requested copies of invoices issued by Ms EJ to Mrs SC, and to Mrs SC’s estate together with Ms EJ’s charge (time) sheets, an itemised breakdown of Ms EJ’s fees into six minute units (including the number of units charged) identifying the dates on which legal services were provided and by whom, a description of the legal services provided, and the hourly charge out rate applied.
(2) Payments to third parties
[14] Ms PG queried payments from Mrs SC’s estate including cleaning Mrs SC’s house, the cost of which Ms PG considered was “well above market rates for cleaning of domestic premises”, the cost of Mrs SC’s funeral and a headstone, and kennel fees for Mrs SC’s two dogs.5
4 Ms EJ, affidavit (10 April 2017) at exhibit "H".
5 The amounts were $8,400 for house cleaning, $10,733.60 funeral costs (for what Ms PG
described as “a small [funeral] service”), $5,000 for a headstone not then in place, kennel fees of
$11,055 for Mrs SC’s two dogs, the gift of Mrs SC’s car to one of the house cleaners, and a charge
of $4,187.84 from a caregiver for one week’s care.
[15] She requested full details of the house cleaning work, including the time taken by the contractor to do the work. She also enquired as to the whereabouts of the $20,000 left by Mrs SC to look after her two dogs.
(3) Ms EJ’s affidavit
[16] Ms PG claimed Ms EJ ought to have “remain[ed] impartial” in the family protection proceedings. She claimed comments made by Ms EJ, as executor, in [Ms EJ’s] affidavit filed in those proceedings were “prejudicial to the outcome” sought by Ms PG and her siblings in their claim.
Response
[17] Following an initial assessment by the Lawyers Complaints Service, Ms PG’s complaint was dealt with through its Early Intervention Process which I refer to later in this decision.
Standards Committee decision
[18] The Committee delivered its decision on 28 March 2018 and determined, pursuant to s 138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act), that no further action on the complaint was necessary or appropriate.
[19] In the Committee’s view, Ms PG was “not legally entitled to the information”
requested, and Ms EJ had “acted correctly in seeking advice” about that request.
[20] In reaching that decision the Committee determined that although Ms PG was a specific legatee pursuant to Mrs SC’s will, she was not a residuary beneficiary entitled to share in “the balance of the estate once all the specific gifts and the estate debts [had] been paid”.
[21] For that reason, the Committee stated that Ms PG was not entitled to the information requested concerning the administration of Mrs SC’s estate. The Committee explained that residuary beneficiaries, who have a right to that information, “are able to receive the details of the payments made and check that these are appropriate”.
[22] The Committee did not address or consider Ms PG’s other complaints about the firm’s fees themselves, payments of Mrs SC’s and Mrs SC’s estate debts by Ms EJ as executor, and Ms EJ’s comments made in her affidavit filed in the family protection proceedings.
Application for review
[23] Ms PG filed an application for review on 11 May 2018. She asks for consideration of her three complaints made to the Lawyers Complaints Service. Ms PG asks that if a finding of unsatisfactory conduct is made against Ms EJ, then Ms EJ be cautioned or censured.
(1) Legal fees
[24] Ms PG says she wants Ms EJ “held to account” in respect of [Ms EJ’s] invoices:
(a) During Mrs SC’s lifetime
[25] Ms PG repeats her concerns about Ms EJ’s attendances on Mrs SC including appointments with Mrs SC who was in hospital at the time, and outings with Mrs SC for “teas and lunches”.
[26] She refers to Ms EJ having had a “tab” for legal charges “for all manner of issues not always legal in nature”, including the attendances referred to above, which Ms EJ “presumably also charged for”. She says she “wanted to look at what services” Ms EJ provided, and “at what rates”.
[27] She notes that with Mrs SC’s date of death being 14 July 2015, the firm’s fee of
$13,241.50 for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016 was largely in respect of the administration of Mrs SC’s estate. She says those attendances, as noted on the firm’s statement, did not include Ms EJ’s fee acting on the sale of Mrs SC’s house.
(b) Mrs SC’s estate
[28] Ms PG claims that the fact the charities, who received the balance of Mrs SC’s estate after distribution to Ms PG and her siblings, would benefit if the firm’s fees were reduced, “overlooks” that Ms EJ’s invoices had “a direct and significant negative impact” on the amount Ms PG and her siblings received following settlement of their family protection claim.
(2) Payments to third parties
[29] Ms PG repeats her queries about the payment by Mrs EJ for cleaning Mrs SC’s house which she says similarly had “a significant impact” on the settlement amount of their family protection claim.6
(3) Ms EJ’s affidavit
[30] Ms PG claims the Committee ignored her complaint that Ms EJ’s comments in [Ms EJ’s] affidavit about her and her siblings were “biased and defamatory”, and had “caused” them needless further pain and suffering and ... harmed their family protection claim.
[31] In Ms PG’s view, by “judg[ing]” Ms PG and her siblings, and “urg[ing] the Court
to deny [their] claims”, Ms EJ “was far from impartial”.
Response
[32] In Ms EJ’s submission, the Committee’s decision “is correct and should remain in force”.7 She says following Mrs SC’s death, Ms PG thanked her for her “support and assistance”.
[33] Ms EJ says as Mrs SC’s executor, she was “legally responsible for putting in place” the funeral arrangements, and in doing so “encouraged Ms PG to be actively involved” to “aid [Ms PG] and the siblings to grieve what was clearly a very difficult dysfunctional family dynamic”.
[34] She says it wasn’t until Ms PG made her family protection claim that Ms PG’s
attitude towards her changed.
(1) Legal fees
(a) During Mrs SC’s lifetime
[35] Ms EJ says knowing that Mrs SC lived on national superannuation “with no other means of financial or practical support”, she did not bill Mrs SC on a regular basis. She says “every unit of time recorded” on Mrs SC’s file “can be properly accounted for - in
fact some of it written off”.
6 96 hours for [Cleaner 1], and 144 hours for [Cleaner 2], with each cleaner remunerated at $35 per hour.
7 Ms EJ, letter to LCRO (28 May 2018).
[36] She says had Ms PG been in a position to take care of Mrs SC, then [Ms EJ] as Mrs SC’s attorney, “might not have been so involved”. Ms EJ submits that in that capacity, she and her “staff who attended” on Mrs SC “on multiple occasions” were “entitled to properly charge for [their] time”.
[37] She says her intention was to make Mrs SC’s “life as comfortable and supported as possible”. She denies she allowed Mrs SC to buy [Ms EJ] lunches which [Ms EJ] says were paid from the firm’s “personal business account as if [Ms EJ] were taking a business associate to lunch”.
(b) Mrs SC’s estate
[38] Ms EJ submits that it “is established authority in the High Court and... Standards Committee(s)” that “only residuary beneficiaries are entitled to a full account of the estate’s costs as their entitlement under the estate is directly affected” by administration costs.
[39] Ms EJ says Ms PG did not avail herself of the opportunity before the judicial settlement conference “to request supporting evidence, invoices”. She considers Ms PG is attempting “to manufacture her standing as a residuary beneficiary” by claiming that the amount she received from the family protection settlement “was affected” by Ms EJ’s fees charged to Mrs SC’s estate.
[40] Ms EJ says the settlement amount of $195,000 accepted by and paid to each of Ms PG, VW and CT, was not affected by the firm’s legal costs charged to Mrs SC’s estate. She says had Ms PG wanted the settlement amount increased to take account of the firm’s legal fees then [Ms PG] could have held out for a higher settlement amount. She says the firm did not charge interest on the legal fees owed by the estate.
(2) Payments to third parties
[41] Ms EJ says as executor of Mrs SC’s will, she took no part in the settlement negotiations of Ms PG’s family protection claim. In her view, Ms PG’s complaint about the cost of Mrs SC’s funeral is “disrespectful to [Mrs SC’s] memory”.
(3) Ms EJ’s affidavit
[42] Ms EJ denies Ms PG’s allegations that her affidavit evidence was “in any way
defamatory or that it harmed Ms PG’s case in any manner”.
[43] Ms EJ says because Ms PG’s complaint did not include her allegations about [Ms EJ’s] affidavit evidence, it is not now open to Ms PG to make those allegations on a review of the Committee’s decision. She says those allegations are “the latest in a string of unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations” brought against her “by Ms PG and her siblings”.
[44] Ms EJ explains that as executor, she was sworn “to uphold” Mrs SC’s will which she drafted in accordance with Mrs SC’s instructions. She says she filed her affidavit in Ms PG’s family protection proceedings in accordance with her statutory duty as executor to provide details of Mrs SC’s reasons for leaving her estate as she did in the will.8
[45] She says because the Family Court judge placed little weight on Mrs SC’s reasons for the dispositions made in the will, her affidavit evidence did not have an adverse effect on Ms PG’s claim.
Hearing
[46] The review progressed by way of an applicant only hearing in Auckland (by teleconference) on 14 November 2019 attended by Ms PG. Although Ms EJ did not exercise her right to attend, having heard from Ms PG, later that day I also heard (teleconference) from Ms EJ who subsequently filed submissions.9
Nature and scope of review
[47] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:10
... the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process.
The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator and seek and receive evidence. These powers extend to “any review” ...
... the power of review is much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his or her own view on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer
8 Family Protection Act 1955, ss 11 and 11A.
9 Ms EJ, letter to LCRO (20 November 2019).
10 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41].
to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason.
[48] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:11
A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It involves the LCRO coming to his or her own view of the fairness of the substance and process of a Committee’s determination.
[49] Given those directions, the approach on this review, based on my own view of the fairness of the substance and process of the Committee’s determination, has been to consider all of the available material afresh, including the Committee’s decision, and provide an independent opinion based on those materials.
Preliminary
[50] The Lawyers Complaints Service dealt with Ms PG’s complaint through its Early Intervention Process (EIP). This involves a Standards Committee conducting an initial assessment of a complaint and forming a preliminary view as to outcome.
[51] If the Committee’s preliminary view is that the complaint lacks substance, a Legal Standards Officer (LSO) will inform the lawyer concerned of the Committee’s preliminary view, inviting response. Any response is noted in a file note and provided to the Committee, which then completes its inquiry into the complaint.
[52] On 13 March 2018 an LSO spoke (telephone) with Ms EJ who informed the LSO that she would send a copy of the consent order to the Lawyers Complaints Service for consideration by the Committee.
Issues
[53] The issues I have identified for consideration on this review are:
(a) Is Ms PG entitled to request and obtain from Ms EJ copies of the invoices and all supporting material and information including timesheets, trust
account printouts, file records?
11 Deliu v Connell [2016] NZHC 361, [2016] NZAR 475 at [2].
(b) Is Ms PG entitled to complain about Ms EJ’s legal fees invoiced to Mrs SC’s estate in respect of Ms EJ’s legal services provided both to Mrs SC, and after her death to Mrs SC’s estate?
(c) Are Ms EJ’s legal fees invoiced to Mrs SC’s estate fair and reasonable?
(d) Do any professional issues arise for Ms EJ from her comments made in her affidavit, filed in the family protection proceedings, about Mrs SC, Ms PG and her siblings and their family relationships?
Analysis
(1) Was Ms PG entitled to information held by the firm about its fees? – issue (a)
[54] Ms PG asked Ms EJ for copies of the firm’s invoices issued to Mrs SC’s estate together with the supporting information including charge (time) sheets, referred to earlier.
[55] This Office has observed that because “a beneficiary may complain about a bill of costs there are obvious pragmatic reasons why a lawyer might choose to provide details of a bill of costs to a beneficiary [but] there is no obligation to do so”.12
[56] In cases such as this where Mrs SC appointed Ms EJ, a lawyer, sole executor and trustee, “a situation can arise where the lawyer is the only person who receives statements and invoices in respect of the affairs of the estate”. In those circumstances “prudence would suggest [that] is best avoided (and is advised against in the Law Society Trust Accounting Guidelines at para 8.3).”13
[57] While there is “no obligation on [the estate lawyer] to seek the consent of (the complainant) or any other beneficiary prior to rendering and paying the bill”, it is suggested that “one way of avoiding” later difficulties about the lawyer’s estate fees “would be to provide beneficiaries with the estate’s invoices and trust account statements”.14
12 Hunstanton v Cambourne LCRO 167/2009 (February 2010) at [8], and Re Murphy’s Settlements [1998] 3 All ER 1 (EWHC) referred to. The requirement on trustees to provide estate or trust accounts to beneficiaries is to be distinguished from any requirement regarding the provision of information about invoices issued by a firm in the administration of the estate or trust: Nicky Richardson Nevill’s Law of Trusts, Wills and Administration (10th ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2010 at [8.11].
13 Hunstanton, above n 12 at [9].
14 At [9] and [10].
[58] By doing so, the lawyer would be following “the guidance of the Court to lawyers administering estates ... that it is best practice ...for a solicitor to obtain prior agreement as to the basis of his charges not only from the executors but from any residuary beneficiary who was an entitled third party”.15
[59] For these reasons, although Ms EJ did not provide Ms PG with the fees information requested, no professional issues adverse to Ms EJ arise for not having done so.
(2) Ms PG’s complaint about Ms EJ’s fees? – issues (b) and (c)
[60] In her complaint, Ms PG raised her concerns about Ms EJ’s fees invoiced to Mrs SC’s estate in respect of legal services provided (a) to Mrs SC, and (b) after Mr SC’s death to her estate. As noted, she asked Ms EJ to provide her with the information held by the firm on which the fees were based.
[61] The Committee’s decision addresses Ms PG’s complaint about Ms EJ not having provided the information requested about Mrs SC’s estate, including Ms EJ’s fees, but does not address Ms PG’s concerns about the amount of the fees themselves.
[62] Section 160 of the Act provides that “any person interested in any property out of which a trustee, executor, or administrator has paid or is entitled to pay” a bill of costs, in respect of which “[the] trustee, executor or administrator has become chargeable”, is entitled to “complain about the amount of the bill” pursuant to section 132(2) of the Act.
[63] Ms EJ submits that Mrs PG “was not a person interested in” Ms Emerson’s estate at the time [Ms PG] made her complaint which Ms EJ notes was not made until four months after the consent order was sealed on 3 October 2017.
[64] In Ms EJ’s submission, Ms PG’s interest as a “specific legatee” under Mrs SC’s will remained unchanged in the Family Court consent order which recorded the settlement of the family protection proceedings. In Ms EJ ’s view, following that settlement, Ms PG’s “interest in the residue of the estate ceased” and [Ms PG] “no longer had any interest in the property” of Mrs SC’s estate “out of which the fees were to be taken”.
[65] Although it is open to me to consider this aspect of Ms PG’s complaint on review,
on reflection, because the parties did not have the opportunity to put their respective
15 At [10], referring to Jemma Trust Co Ltd v Liptrott [2003] EWCA Civ 1476, [2004] 1 All ER 510 at 522.
positions about Ms EJ’s fees before the Committee I have decided that the proper course for me is to return that matter to the Committee for consideration.
[66] I therefore direct the Committee to consider and determine:
(a) whether Ms PG was entitled to complain about Ms EJ’s fees issued to Mrs
SC’s estate; and
(b) whether Ms EJ’s fees were, as required by r 9, fair and reasonable having regard to the interests of both Mrs SC’s estate and Ms EJ, and having regard also to the fee factors contained in r 9.1.
(3) Ms EJ’s affidavit – issue (d)
[67] In her complaint, Ms PG claimed that Ms EJ, as the executor of Mrs SC’s will, as well as the lawyer acting in Mrs SC’s estate, ought to have “remain[ed] impartial” in the family protection proceedings.
[68] Ms PG considers that Ms EJ “grossly overstepped” Ms EJ’s role as executor in providing the affidavit that she did. She claimed that Ms EJ’s comments prejudiced the outcome sought by [Ms PG] and her siblings from those proceedings.
[69] In her application for review, Ms PG, referring to specific paragraphs of Ms EJ’s affidavit, further claimed that Ms EJ had defamed family members causing them “needless further pain and suffering”. Ms PG takes issue with the accuracy of some of Ms EJ’s comments which she says had resulted in her family being “torn apart”.
[70] As noted earlier, Ms EJ says she provided her affidavit in accordance with her statutory duty as executor to do so. She denies she defamed Ms PG and her family. She denies that her comments had prejudiced the outcome of their family protection claim.
[71] The affidavits filed in the family protection proceedings by Ms PG and her siblings, and by Ms EJ would have been placed before the Family Court judge. As I have noted Ms PG’s claim did not proceed to a hearing, and was settled on 3 October 2017, the day of the scheduled judicial settlement conference.
[72] No evidence has been produced by either party that the Court made any adverse comment about the contents of any of the affidavits, including Ms EJ’s affidavit, filed in those proceedings. Furthermore, it is not possible, more than two years later, to say with any degree of certainty what the outcome might have been had the family
protection claim proceeded to a hearing where all evidence could have been tested by cross-examination.
[73] For these reasons, I consider that any further action in respect of this aspect of
Ms PG’s complaint appears unnecessary or inappropriate.
(4) Third party accounts
[74] For completeness, I also refer to Ms PG’s queries about Mrs SC’s estate’s
expenses paid by Ms EJ as executor.
[75] An executor’s duties, which comprise “certain specific statutory and common law duties and powers”, include burying the deceased, making an inventory of assets, paying all duties, paying the deceased’s debts and testamentary expenses and debts, paying legacies, distribution of the residue to those entitled, and keeping accounts.16
[76] As noted earlier, Ms PG queried a number of payments made by the firm from Mrs SC’s estate funds including charges for a week’s caregiving for Mrs SC, Mrs SC’s funeral, a headstone, cleaning Mrs SC’s house, kennel fees, and the gift of Mrs SC’s car to one of the house cleaners.
[77] Those payments fall into the category of payments made by an executor in the discharge of the deceased’s debts and estate debts. The jurisdiction for such matters lies with the Court, not with a Standards Committee, or this Office on review.
[78] I do however, make some general observations An executor is required to obtain details of debts owed by the deceased and to attend to payment, including if necessary, advertising for creditors.17 The debts may be paid without “seek[ing] consent or direction from a beneficiary”.18 Matters such as the cost of the headstone will “depend largely on the size of the estate, and the circumstances in life of the will-maker.19
[79] Any enquiries or complaint Ms PG may have about those payments having been made by the firm should, in the first instance, be brought to the attention of Ms EJ in her capacity as executor of Mrs SC’s will.
16 Nevill’s Law of Trusts, above n 12 citing Re Stewart [2003] 1 NZLR 809 (HC) at [24].
17 Administration Act 1969, s 26.
18 Hunstanton, above n 12 at [10].
19 Nevill’s Law of Trusts at [20.1], [20.1.1].
Decision
[80] For the above reasons:
(a) Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Committee is confirmed as to the Committee’s decision to take no further action concerning Ms PG’s allegation that Ms EJ did not provide her with the information requested about Ms EJ’s fees invoiced by the firm to Mrs SC’s estate in respect of legal work provided to Mrs SC during her lifetime, and following her death in respect of Mrs SC’s estate.
(b) Pursuant to s 209(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the Committee is directed to consider and determine Ms PG’s complaint about Ms EJ’s fees invoiced by the firm to Mrs SC’s estate in respect of legal work provided to Mrs SC during her lifetime, and following her death in respect of to Mrs SC’s estate, namely:
(i) whether Ms PG was entitled to complain about Ms EJ’s fees issued
to Mrs SC’s estate; and
(ii) whether those fees, as required by r 9 are fair and reasonable having regard to the interests of both Mrs SC’s estate, and Ms EJ, and having regard also to the fee factors contained in r 9.1.
(c) Pursuant to s 211(1)(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, on the grounds that any further action is unnecessary or appropriate, I have decided not to take any further action in respect of Ms PG’s complaint about:
(i) The payments made by Ms EJ, as executor of Mrs SC’s will, from estate funds towards Mrs SC’s debts and Mrs SC’s estate debts; and
(ii) Ms EJ’s affidavit filed in the family protection proceedings.
Anonymised publication
[81] Pursuant to s 206(4) of the Act, I direct that this decision be published so as to be accessible to the wider profession in a form anonymising the parties and bereft of anything as might lead to their identification.
DATED this 29TH day of November 2019
B A Galloway
Legal Complaints Review Officer
In accordance with s 213 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 copies of this decision are to be provided to:
Ms PG as the Applicant Ms EJ as the Respondent Mrs AQ as a Related Person
[Area] Standards Committee [X] New Zealand Law Society
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZLCRO/2019/126.html