Complaints against lawyers

Press, 26 December 1984, Page 14

Complaints against lawyers

Sir,—Where a New Zealand citizen makes a complaint to the Law Society, I feel that he or she is entitled to know on what grounds such a complaint is rejected. There is an old legal proverb: “Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.” The case I know of concerns the part played by two solicitors in the sale of a trust estate, without the benefit of a registered valuer’s report, below the 1984 Government valuation, disregarding a clause in the testator’s will that an outbuilding on the property was no part of the estate, and certain provisions of the Trustees Act. The vendor was an elderly woman with impaired memory, though a medical certificate was obtained to say that she had testamentary capacity. In the public interest, could you tell me the names of the members of the complaints committee of the Canterbury District Law Society?— Yours, etc.,

S. L. MNALDSON. December 16, 1984.

[The president of the Canterbury District Law Society, Mr A. P. C. Tipping, replies: “You will appreciate that I cannot comment about the particular case because of the confidential nature of matters of this kind. District law societies have a statutory duty to investigate complaints made by members of the public about the. conduct of solicitors. Usually, the complaint comes from a client about the conduct of his/her own solicitor. Sometimes people complain about the conduct of solicitors when there is no solicitor/client relationship. In all cases, the matter is thoroughly investigated by the complaints committee of my council. Complainants are always advised of the findings of the committee with such detail as is appropriate to the case in hand. It is an unhappy fact that sometimes complainants cannot accept the decision reached. In such circumstances, the complainant has the right to refer the matter to the lay observer who is a person completely independent of the Law Society, appointed by Parliament to look into cases when the complainant is not satisfied with the decision reached by the Law Society. The lay observer looks into the whole case afresh and has power to direct the Law Society to reconsider the matter. I am not prepared to release for publication the names of the members of my

council’s complaints committee. If your correspondent feels that she has not had proper consideration given to her complaint she may refer the matter to the lay observer, Miss C. E. De we, c/- Justice Department, Private Bag, Christchurch. That is the course laid down by Parliament in the Law Practitioners Act, 1982, for circumstances such as these.”]