New Zealand Law Society - Results of consultation on proposed changes to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and secondary legislation
The New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa continues to advocate for changes to the regulatory framework for lawyers with a view to protecting consumers and enhancing public confidence in the profession. The Law Society has been told by the Government that substantive reform of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (Act) is unlikely to be a priority in the current Parliamentary term. As a result, the Law Society is continuing to identify and progress regulatory improvements that could be achieved within the current regulatory framework.
As part of this work, in 2025, the Law Society consulted on potential amendments to the Act and the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Lawyers: Practice Rules) Regulations (Practice Rules). The consultation paper is available: NZLS | Consultation document.
The potential amendments that were consulted on reflected recommendations from the Independent Review Panel report and addressed issues raised regularly with the Law Society, including by lawyers. The proposed changes sought to:
The purpose of the consultation process was to seek feedback on the proposed amendments including on their workability. The proposals that were consulted on were at an early stage of development; the intention was that the consultation process would help with refining and finalising the proposals. Some details would need to be developed through the legislative process, were the proposals to proceed to that stage.
The consultation was open to the public and profession from 6 August until 26 September 2025.
Responses were sought via anonymous completion of an online survey. The survey included a ‘free text’ field for each proposed amendment to enable the gathering of qualitative feedback. Participants were able to skip questions they did not wish to answer. The survey concluded with a further ‘free text’ field, to enable submitters to provide any additional feedback not otherwise covered by the survey questions.
Several written submissions were also received from large law firms, professional and other interest-based groups, and individual practitioners.
The Law Society also proactively reached out to consumer groups to try to understand the perspectives of consumers of legal services. As the survey results (below) indicate, a lack of engagement by consumers with the consultation meant it was difficult to capture these views.
Overall, we received 591 responses via the survey1 and 24 substantive submissions. Eighty-eight percent of survey respondents identified themselves as lawyers (which represents 3 percent of the profession2). A further 9 percent of survey respondents identified themselves as members of the legal community.3
Overall, support for the proposed changes was mixed. It is clear the profession is not aligned on the issues that the consultation attempted to address. As noted, by far, most of the feedback on the consultation was from lawyers rather than from consumers of legal services (only 3 percent of respondents were not members of the legal community). This means the consultation response does not necessarily accurately or fully represent the views of clients and others who engage with the profession.
We have included below the data captured via the survey on each proposed amendment. However, having reviewed the comments provided by submitters, we consider that more members of the profession support the intention behind the proposed amendments than the survey data suggests. We also consider that a higher level of agreement to some of the potential amendments would be likely once more detailed drafting is available. In respect of the latter, we are limited in what we can propose as the drafting of legislation is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. However, we intend to consider whether additional consultation on more specific wording would assuage some of the concerns we have heard.
Proposed amendment to enable a Standards Committee to order a lawyer to adjust their fees without first making an unsatisfactory conduct finding.
At present, a Standards Committee can only order a lawyer to adjust the fees they have charged a client if they have made an unsatisfactory finding in respect of the lawyer. The proposed amendment would enable a Standards Committee to determine a fee charged by a lawyer is not fair and reasonable in accordance with the reasonable fee factors in Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care (Rules) and make appropriate orders, without being required first to impose an unsatisfactory conduct finding on the lawyer.
Forty-seven percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 46 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 7 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Those who supported this proposal considered that this amendment would allow a fairer and more proportionate outcome in fee complaints in circumstances where a resolution for the consumer is appropriate, but where the impact of an unsatisfactory finding on the lawyer would be disproportionate to the lawyer’s conduct. Some submissions also suggested the amendment could have a consequential benefit for timeliness and efficiency in the complaints system.
The primary concern for those who disagreed with this proposal was how it aligns with the current regulatory framework. Some were of the view that a finding that a fee is not fair and reasonable is a finding of a breach of the Rules and therefore must be unsatisfactory conduct. Others felt that fees are a commercial arrangement and that the regulator should not have a role in fee complaints unless it is a matter of unsatisfactory conduct on the part of the lawyer. There was a concern that the proposed amendment would lead to arbitrary decisions, as well as predictions it could lead to an increase in fee complaints, impacting members of the profession and the workload of the Lawyers Complaints Service.
Proposed amendment to enable a Standards Committee to order apology to a person other than the complainant
Currently, a Standards Committee can order a lawyer who is the subject of an unsatisfactory conduct finding to apologise to a complainant only. The proposed amendment would enable a Standards Committee to order a lawyer to apologise to someone who has been affected by the lawyer’s conduct, but who is not a complainant or does not feel able to make a complaint. The rationale is that a Standards Committee should be entitled to order a lawyer to apologise to that person if they decide it is the appropriate course of action in the circumstances.
Thirty-five percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 55 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed and 11 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Support for this proposal felt the amendment would be a useful tool for Standards Committees in bullying and harassment cases, where the conduct of the lawyer in question is found to have affected more individuals than the complainant or where there is no complainant but identifiable individuals who were affected by the conduct. Some noted it would ensure an appropriate remedy is available to recognise harm caused to an affected party where no complaint was made but the matter was raised through a mandatory report and is being considered as an own motion investigation.
Some submitters agreed with the principle of the proposal but considered more clarity was needed around who could be the subject of an order for an apology. Some indicated they would be supportive if the amendment were confined to directly affected persons with a strong evidenced link between them and the conduct.
Some submitters disagreed with the proposed amendment because of concern that it was overly broad. Several felt this could undermine the confidentiality of the complaint process and cause disproportionate reputational harm for the lawyer, while others misunderstood the purpose of the proposed amendment and expressed concern it could be used to order public apologies.
Although Standards Committees are already able to order a lawyer to make an apology to a complainant, some submitters disagreed with Standards Committees having the ability to order an apology at all, considering it a form of compelled speech, and argued that an apology should be voluntary in order to be meaningful.
We also received submissions disagreeing with the proposed amendment because an apology order may not be in a victim’s best interest – it could inadvertently re-traumatise victims or violate their sense of agency and control.
Proposed amendment relating to decisions to refer a complaint to the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (Tribunal)
At present, lawyers regularly seek review by the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) of decisions by Standards Committees to refer a complaint or own motion investigation to the Tribunal. The Law Society’s view is that the right to review these decisions under the Act was likely an unintentional drafting oversight, which has had unintended consequences specifically by causing delay to the resolution of complaints. The proposed amendment would exempt decisions of a Standards Committee to lay charges with the Tribunal from review by the LCRO.
Thirty-four percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 50 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 16 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Those who supported the proposed amendment agreed with the rationale outlined in the consultation document, including that the ability to review what is essentially a prosecutorial discretion is an unintended loophole and that the amendment would bring the Act in line with other regulatory bodies. It was noted that a similar loophole in the Real Estate Agency Act was rectified in 2019. Some submitters noted it was inherent in the jurisdiction of Tribunal and its procedures to remedy errors in the charging process, that the Tribunal was in a better position to do so, and that the decision to lay charges is judicially reviewable by the High Court. Some submitters noted concern that the right to review decisions to refer complaints to the Tribunal was being abused, causing delays, and that this was detrimental to affected parties as well as to the public perception of lawyers.
Those who disagreed with the proposed amendment considered the LCRO review to be a vital safeguard in the disciplinary process, by providing external oversight to Standards Committee decisions. Submitters noted the impact of charges being laid in the Tribunal can result in immediate professional and reputational harm to the lawyer before its processes could reasonably address charging errors. It was submitted that delays in the complaint process are not sufficient justification for the proposed amendment given the impact on the natural justice rights, privacy, and reputation of the lawyer, particularly in circumstances where the complaint has not yet been substantiated.
Proposed amendment relating to decisions to appoint an investigator for a complaint investigation
At present, the parties to a complaint have the right to seek review by the LCRO of a decision by a Standards Committee to appoint an investigator. This is a procedural decision only, which does not affect the rights of the parties, and the review process significantly delays the progress of the investigation and resolution of the complaint to the detriment of all parties. The proposed amendment to the Act would remove this right (the parties would still have the right to seek review of the final outcome of the complaint and could raise procedural matters at that stage).
Thirty-two percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 45 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 23 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Submissions in support of the amendment agreed that the appointment of an investigator is a procedural step in the consideration of a complaint, and that this amendment would reduce delay in the complaints process by removing an avenue open to misuse.
Submissions opposing the amendment felt the appointment of an investigator is not a purely procedural step because the investigation can be invasive and give rise to harm before a Standards Committee has made a finding. These submitters felt the ability to review to the LCRO is an important safeguard which should be preserved.
Proposed amendment to enable disclosure of complaint information to a person or people affected by the conduct
This proposed amendment would allow the Lawyers Complaints Service to provide procedural information about the progress of a complaint or own motion investigation to people who are affected by the lawyer’s alleged conduct even if they have not made a complaint. At present, an affected person (who does not want to be a complainant) is not permitted to receive procedural information about the status of the complaint or inquiry, while a complainant receives the lawyer’s response to the complaint, any investigator’s report, the Committee’s determination, and other substantive material about the complaint. This results in scenarios in which an affected person may have a legitimate interest in the progress and outcome of a complaint (or OMI) but finds the complaints system lacks transparency due to the Lawyers Complaints Service’s inability to provide relevant information.
Thirty-two percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 58 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 10 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Submissions in support considered the amendment would be a step towards improving transparency in the complaints process. All persons with proper interest in the lawyer’s conduct have the potential to receive the same information regardless of whether the person is a formal complainant. Several submitters also noted an affected person will often themselves be a lawyer who may be hesitant to be a complainant. This amendment would increase trust among members of the profession and reassurance that conduct is being responded to appropriately.
Several submitters noted that the definition of ‘affected person’ will require careful drafting to ensure it captures the intention of the amendment while preserving the confidentiality of the complaints regime.
Those who disagreed with the proposal expressed concern that increased disclosure of complaint information before a finding of wrongdoing would increase the risk of reputational harm to the lawyer. Some submitters were concerned the amendment would enable public disclosure of complaint information (this was not intended or proposed) and expressed concern about the lawyer’s right to privacy and natural justice.
However, some submissions disagreed with the proposed amendment because they felt it didn’t go far enough to increase transparency and the accountability of the complaints process.
Proposed amendment to clarify the ability to disclose complaint information to regulatory or law enforcement agencies acting in the performance of their duty
At present, s 188 of the Act specifies that the Law Society may disclose complaints information to the Police and Serious Fraud Office employees when acting in the performance of their duties. This language reflects the regulatory environment when the Act was drafted but not the regulatory environment that exists now where it may be appropriate to share information with different agencies, such as the Department of Internal Affairs which administers the AML/CFT regime for lawyers. The proposed amendment would clarify the ability of the Law Society to disclose complaint information to a wider range of regulatory bodies.
Thirty-nine percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 49 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 12 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Submissions in support noted this was a necessary amendment to allow for the administration of the AML/CFT regime and other regulatory matters. The amendment would align the legal profession with other professions. Many submissions in support supported the amendment being drafted broadly, so that it could capture future regulatory information-sharing requirements (rather than specifying agencies and leading to a scenario where the Act may need to be amended again in future). However, there were also many submissions that indicated they would support a defined list of regulatory agencies who could receive information, but not an open provision.
Submissions disagreeing with the amendment expressed concern that the parameters of the proposed amendment were too vague. Some felt that, in addition to specifying recipient agencies, the amendment should also include prescriptive safeguards to protect against over-disclosure and fishing expeditions.
Some submitted that no complaint information should be disclosed until or unless unsatisfactory conduct or misconduct is proved.
This proposed amendment would rectify an apparent drafting error in the Act which results in an anomaly between the information given to related people at different points in the complaints process. At present, a related person may receive a Notice of Hearing and be entitled to make submissions on the matter but is not entitled to receive a copy of the Standards Committee’s final determination.
Fifty-four percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 24 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 22 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Submissions in support agreed that the inconsistencies in the Act were an obvious drafting error and that the amendment is needed to remedy the legislative oversight.
Submissions that did not agree with the proposal primarily contended that it was not sufficiently evident that the legislative drafting was an error, and that the consultation document put forward an insufficient policy rationale to justify the need for this amendment.
Other submissions appeared to misunderstand the issue raised and were concerned the amendment would undermine the confidentiality of the complaints process and/or that the related people affected by the proposed amendment did not have a direct interest in the information.
One submission noted the amendment would also expand to the related people a right to challenge decisions, which would have a potential impact on the LCRO workload. Some were concerned that the information could be misused in employment-related claims.
At present, all applicants to practise on own account must meet a standard minimum legal experience in New Zealand requirement (three years of legal experience in New Zealand within the past five years), regardless of the mode in which they intend to practise if approved. The proposed amendment would prescribe differing minimum legal experience requirements for different modes of practice to better reflect the risk posed by the specific mode. The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that the regulatory requirement continued to protect consumers appropriately while meeting the specific regulatory risk.
Forty percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 41 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed and 20 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Those who agreed with the proposed amendment considered it would be a sensible change, which was risk-based and tailored to practice type, but still protecting consumers.
A number of submissions supported the amendment in principle but indicated they needed more information on the criteria and risk analysis that would be undertaken in due course. Similarly, several responses signalled disagreement to the proposed amendment at this stage, wanting to first understand and consider the detail behind the proposal.
Some submitters considered the current requirements to practice on own account to be too lenient and that the protections should be increased. Others felt the proposed amendment didn’t go far enough to remove barriers to practising on own account. Competency-based criteria was a preferred option for some submitters.
This proposed amendment would enable the Law Society to impose bespoke conditions on a lawyer’s practising certificate, in appropriate circumstances. This is a regulatory tool recommended by the Independent Review panel and already held by comparable overseas regulators and other New Zealand professional regulators, including the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers which also operates under the Act. The consultation document had noted that the types of conditions that could be available to the regulator would need to be considered in more detail, but referenced the conditions contained in the Uniform Rules in Australian Uniform Law states.
Forty-two percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 46 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 13 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Submitters who agreed with the proposed change considered the amendment would introduce an appropriate regulatory tool that is supportive of the practitioner and protective of the public. Feedback noted similar tools are available to other New Zealand professional regulatory bodies and it is ‘sensible’ to enable the legal regulator to have the same as it would be consistent with the Act’s consumer protection purpose.
Feedback was received that the amendment would need to ensure there is the ability for the lawyer to review a proposed condition, and for regular assessment whether the condition is still appropriate/necessary.
A number of responses indicated they couldn’t support the proposed amendment without knowing the details or relevant conditions.
Submissions that disagreed with the proposed amendment were concerned the amendment could be misused and result in arbitrary restrictions on a lawyer’s practice. Some submitted conditions on practice should only be imposed following an adverse conduct finding or if a practitioner made a voluntary undertaking. Some submitters considered this amendment to be unnecessary, as members of the profession should be trusted to only undertake work for which they are competent to do. Some submitters who disagreed with this proposal were concerned bespoke conditions could be used by the regulator to bypass, or otherwise dilute, the fit and proper person test. Feedback suggested an amendment of this nature shouldn’t be made by regulation, but as a policy matter for the Act.
The proposed amendment would require any conditions that were imposed on a lawyer’s practising certificate to be published on the public register. Thirty-nine percent of submitters agreed or strongly agreed with this proposed change, while 45 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed and 16 percent neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed change.
Support or disagreement for this proposed amendment was largely consistent with all questions relating to the bespoke conditions proposal. However, some of those who supported an amendment to enable bespoke conditions to be imposed on a practising certificate did not necessarily support those conditions being published, with some expressing concern about the impact on practitioners of conditions being public knowledge, particularly any that were health related. Conversely, some respondents only supported conditions being imposed on a practising certificate if the conditions were listed publicly, to promote transparency and trust.
Several responses submitted no regulatory changes should be made until the Independent Review recommendation to establish an independent regulator has been implemented. Feedback was also received that any ‘piecemeal’ amendment was undesirable and should wait for substantive reform.
While this was out of scope of the consultation, we address this below.
The Independent Review recommended establishing a new independent regulator to regulate lawyers in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The Law Society accepted this recommendation in principle, noting the significance of this change to the regulatory framework for lawyers, and that a range of issues would need to be considered and resolved before such a change could be adopted. The view of the profession on this recommendation was itself mixed (about 50 percent indicated support in the Independent Panel’s survey, and about 60 percent indicated support in the later Law Society survey).
To implement this recommendation (and other recommendations made by the Independent Review), substantial reform of the Act would be required. This cannot be achieved through a statutes amendment bill or other omnibus legislation. Progressing reform of this nature would require significant government and Ministry resource, and time on the legislation programme. As noted above, the Minister of Justice has signalled that wholesale reform of the Act is not a government priority this parliamentary term. Even if reform of the Act was to be put on the legislation programme, any substantive change to the Act will not be a quick process (the development and enactment of the Bill that became the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act took 10 years).
The Law Society continues to strongly advocate for the need for reform of the regulatory regime for lawyers. However, pending this, the Law Society remains the statutory regulator and needs to continue to uphold its responsibilities to ensure an effective and responsive regulatory system. It is not appropriate for the Law Society to neglect this responsibility, pending the possibility of distant future reform which is not a priority for the Government and for which there is no timeframe.
The Law Society will continue to progress those parts of the Independent Review Panel’s recommendations that can be given effect – in whole or in part – through improvements that can be made to the regulatory system that are within the Law Society’s control. The Law Society will also continue to take opportunities to propose amendments to the Act when possible legislative vehicles are available and to the relevant Regulations. It is noted the Independent Review Panel commented: “Regulatory issues should be examined, not against the interests of the legal profession, but against the test of what is in the public interest. Protecting consumers should be the primary objective of the regulatory body. However, we note that the public interest is not limited to the consumer perspective. It includes what will help ensure an effective legal profession”
A number of submitters suggested additional amendments that could be made to the Act that are not within the scope of the consultation. These related to various parts of the regulatory regime.
These proposals have been noted, and we will communicate with the submitters on these points separately. We acknowledge that several submitters proposed changes to make the complaints system more transparent and victim-focused. This is a message that we receive regularly, and this objective informed the consultation we undertook in 2021 as well as the changes to the confidentiality provisions we proposed in this current consultation, as discussed above.
We have shared the findings of the consultation with the Ministry of Justice. We will continue to work with the Ministry to identify opportunities for the proposals and consultation feedback to be considered as part of any future reform. There is currently no suitable legislative vehicle for any changes to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. We will also continue to talk with officials about potential amendments to related regulations.
As noted earlier, the majority of feedback on the consultation was from lawyers rather than from consumers of legal services. This means that the response we have received does not necessarily accurately or fully reflect the views of clients and others who engage with the profession. The Law Society has commenced some consumer research, and the results of this will also inform next steps.