Single trans-Tasman regulatory framework examined
The New Zealand Law Society has commented on the proposed single trans-Tasman regulatory framework for patent attorneys.
The Society believes the single regulatory approach is likely to harmonise the framework and thus increase the number of Australian and New Zealand patent attorney firms who extend their practices across the Tasman.
In its submission on the proposals outlined in the Single Trans-Tasman Regulatory Framework for Patent Attorneys, Discussion Paper, the Society highlights its concerns about both lawyers and patent attorneys being subject to two separate regulatory regimes in terms of qualification consistency and the lack of single register of patent attorneys.
Lawyers should not be exposed to a dual process for complaints and disciplinary regimes, the Society says, asserting that it would be double jeopardy. If lawyer patent attorneys were subject to two separate complaints and disciplinary regimes it would permit individuals to lodge complaints under either or both regimes.
However, the submission says that a single code of conduct for patent attorneys would do little more than replicate some of the obligations of lawyers. The Society states that this would confer little or no benefit on anyone, would cause confusion, and would add to compliance costs that would ultimately be met by consumers.
The Society says that in certain circumstances, it is entirely inappropriate for lawyers to be subject to two separate conduct and disciplinary regimes, namely their own and those imposed under the Patent Attorney Trans-Tasman Regime.
In the paper, the Working Party proposes that a lawyer who is not also a patent attorney should not be permitted to prepare or amend a patent specification unless the lawyer is acting under instructions of a registered patent attorney or the amendment has been directed by an order of the Court
The Society considers that this absolute statutory prohibition provision preventing all lawyers from preparing or amending a patent specification is both “unnecessary and undesirable”. The submission says it is clear that lawyers must at all times act competently and that this requires a lawyer not to undertake work in an area beyond that lawyer’s field of competency.