Quake lawyer denies conflict
A prominent quake claims lawyer alleged to have put his own interests above his clients has denied any wrongdoing.
Auckland lawyer Grant Shand and Claims Resolution Service Ltd (CRS) are defending a High Court claim by former customer Karlie Smith and others.
CRS, previously headed by earthquake claims champion Bryan Staples, acted for homeowners against insurance companies on a no-win, no-fee basis. Most of CRS’s clients were represented by Shand.
Smith is applying for leave from the court to fight the case as a class action. She argues her claim includes significant legal questions common to other claimants against CRS and Shand. It is alleged CRS and Shand were in an undisclosed joint venture and their experts were not independent.
Alastair Darroch, for Shand, told the High Court in Christchurch yesterday his client accepted he had a duty to act in the best interests of his clients and believed he did so. He also believed he got good results.
The allegation he had preferred his own interests was very serious and meant he was entitled to see how the claims were formulated and how each client was affected. This could not be best done in a class action as each claimant had different circumstances. One, for instance, had been through three sets of lawyers.
Shand believed he got a very good settlement for Smith. She had received a second opinion on the approach to take and then agreed to a settlement in May this year.
Shand had really put it to the plaintiff and the other claimants, Darroch said. ‘‘Tell me what you would have got [with another solicitor]? Where is this damage that you have incurred?’’
Shand had received response.
Darroch said Shand wanted to address the complaints but that required an individual approach not a merged one.
Andrew Barker QC, for CRS, spent several hours at yesterday’s hearing showing how each of the claims were different and therefore unsuitable for a class action.
Not all the claimants were similarly vulnerable, he said, and claims the clients had entered ‘‘unconscionable bargains’’ could never be dealt with on a generic basis.
A class action could deprive his client of a potential defence and some claimants with stronger arguments than others could also be disadvantaged.
Justice David Gendall has reserved his decision. no