Despite a decline in applications to the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) in the year to 30 June 2015, the backlog of cases has reached such a proportion that making inroads into this backlog has been insignificant.

This is stated in the LCRO’s report for the year to 30 June 2015, which was presented to Parliament on 14 April.

“Concern at the increasing delays in completing reviews has been identified in a number of annual reports filed by the LCRO as the most significant problem facing the office,” the report says.

“Whilst the office has, in the current reporting year, been able to deliver a significant increase in the number of decisions to that for the previous reporting period, lengthy delay in completing reviews remains a continuing challenge for the office.”

As at 30 June 2015, 579 applications for review remained active. This is down from 626 reviews outstanding at the end of the previous reporting period.

Procedural design of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 has been a factor which has contributed to unnecessary delay.

Attention needed

Three matters, the report said, warrant attention:

Firstly

The current legislation promotes the commendable objective of ensuring that parties have easy access to the complaints process. However, a number of reviews are being filed where the applicant presents as having no immediate connection with the subject matter of the complaint. Consideration may need to be given as to whether the complaint process can continue to sustain applications of this nature.

Secondly

The continuing ability of all applicants to receive a de novo inquiry into their complaint together with the right to be personally heard, are also matters which are deserving of consideration. In circumstances where the office is experiencing considerable difficulty in meeting its statutory requirement to deal with cases expeditiously, the continuing ability of parties to insist on their matter proceeding by way of formal hearing may need to be addressed. While it is important to preserve the right for parties to appear in person before the LCRO to present their case, in many cases the LCRO can, and does, deal effectively with the review by reference to the submissions filed without need for the applicant to appear in person. It would promote a more effective process if legislative direction was given that the LCRO could direct, in appropriate cases, that the review be conducted without need for a personal appearance from the applicant.

Thirdly

When concerns about delay in delivering decisions are at the forefront, it is an unproductive use of judicial resource for review officers to be diverted by applications which transparently lack merit. A not inconsiderable number of the applications that come before the office present, on initial examination, as having remote chance of achieving successful outcome for the applicants. Frequently these applications are reflective of applicants who are endeavouring to relitigate proceedings in which they have been unsuccessful in other forums, or give indication that the complaints process is being exercised for collateral purpose. These applications could be dealt with expeditiously if the office had appropriate procedures to deal summarily with the applications.

Statistics

The LCRO received 278 applications for review during the reporting period of 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015 – all relating to decisions of lawyers standards committees.

“This is a significant reduction compared to the previous reporting year, in which 349 applications were received,” the report said.

During the reporting period the LCRO completed 325 reviews. This compares with 225 reviews completed in the previous reporting year. Of the 325 completed reviews, 274 related to reviews filed in the previous reporting period.

The LCRO is administered by the Ministry of Justice and funded by levies imposed on the New Zealand Law Society and New Zealand Society of Conveyancers under s 217 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. 

Timeliness of completed reviews

The LCRO reports for the years to 30 June 2013, 2014 and 2015 show the following:

Outcomes of reviews

* One more decision related to a Lay Observer report. This is not included in the 2013 statistics.