Lawyer says ‘broken’ complaints system needs overhaul
A top lawyer embroiled in a long dispute with the Law Society’s disciplinary committee says the profession’s complaints system is “broken” and needs an overhaul.
The High Court ruled two years ago that the committee made an error in law in a case involving Chapman Tripp partner Garth Gallaway.
He was furious the Law Society still had not published that decision.
In December 2020, the High Court ruled Gallaway had acted appropriately in providing advice to a client, and the Law Society’s National Standards Committee hearing a complaint about him had misinterpreted the law and breached the principles of natural justice by failing to give him fair notice of issues that it found against him.
The Law Society’s failure to publish a summary of the High Court decision showed a lack of integrity, Gallaway said.
“They wave decisions against practitioners around so freely and so quickly, and yet, nearly two years after the High Court has found against their number one National Standards Committee so fundamentally, they have failed to publish that decision.
The saga started in 2015 when a valuer gave an earthquake-prone building in Wellington a market rental value of nil.
A complaint was made about the valuer to the Valuers Registration Board. The valuer’s indemnity insurance company appointed Gallaway as the lawyer to defend the charges.
The valuer eventually pleaded guilty and was fined, but soon after filed a complaint against Gallaway with the Law Society’s National Standards Committee. The 2018 complaint alleged Gallaway had failed to act in the valuer’s best interests. The Law Society operates 12 standards committees to hear complaints made about lawyers. National Standard Committee One was allocated to Gallaway’s case.
In June 2019, the committee decided Gallaway had acted appropriately in providing advice but had failed to correctly identify the valuer as his primary client, rather than the insurance company that appointed him, which was not part of the client’s original complaint.
It made a finding against Gallaway of unsatisfactory conduct.
This was despite a peer reviewed legal opinion from Mike Ring, KC, which said Gallaway had acted appropriately throughout and that his instructions were from the valuer and the insurance company.
“They found that there was no case to answer, that I had acted appropriately at all times and provided a good quality of service to the valuer.
‘‘But then they went off down this rabbit hole of their own volition,” Gallaway said.
Believing the committee’s interpretation was wrong, Gallaway - with Chapman Tripp’s help - sought a judicial review of the decision.
In its December 2020 decision, the High Court found there was a “material error of law” in the committee’s ruling.
It also found the committee breached Gallaway’s natural justice by failing to give him fair notice of its intention to investigate the client issue.
The complaints system was broken, too lengthy and needed an overhaul, Gallaway said.
The Law Society said it doesn’t normally publish full decisions of the High Court on its website.
However, it hoped to publish a summary of Gallaway’s judicial review before Christmas.
Draft guidelines were also currently being reviewed by its legal team, it said in a statement.
It was also “standard process” for the Law Society to intervene in judicial review matters involving a Standards Committee.