The passage of time does not by itself mean that this ground applies. Consideration will be given to the challenges in investigating the complaint as a result of the passage of time, the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the present circumstances of the parties, and the reasons for any delay.

This means the complaint is based on trivial matters or unrealistic allegations that do not justify taking the limited time and resources of a Standards Committee. In assessing whether the complaint is trivial, it is open to the LCS to consider the subjective importance of the complaint to the applicant.

These criteria often overlap, but each provides a standalone basis for taking no further action. A complaint will be frivolous where it lacks any serious purpose or value, has no serious prospect of succeeding, and turns on trivial or unrealistic facts. It will be vexatious where it is baseless and has the sole effect of causing annoyance (even where that is not the applicant’s intention). A complaint will not be advanced in good faith when it is dishonest, or advanced for a collateral purpose.

This ground will apply if the person who is allegedly affected by the lawyer’s conduct has decided they do not want an investigation of the complaint or other action to be taken on the complaint. The affected person is usually the complainant, but it may be another person, for example, where a complaint is made on behalf of a person who was the subject of the conduct by the lawyer. The aggrieved person may have decided they do not want any action to be taken because an agreement has been reached with the lawyer. The LCS may still decide to refer the matters that have been raised to a Standards Committee, for the Standards Committee to decide whether to commence an own motion inquiry, if the LCS considers those matters are serious.

Anyone can make a complaint. It is not only the clients of a lawyer that may complain about the lawyer’s conduct. But where the complainant is not a client, they will need to show a personal connection to the subject matter of the complaint. Something more than an interest in generally upholding the standards of the legal profession will be required. A personal connection may be demonstrated by the consequences for the complainant of the conduct complained of, or the remedy sought. Lawyers owe limited duties to people who aren’t their clients. This means it’s necessary for a complainant to show more than that they have been impacted by the lawyer’s advice to an opposing party.

This can include remedies provided by sources other than the lawyer who is responding to the complaint or through the complaints system under the LCA. Examples include approaches to trustees or estates, or remedies under the Privacy Act 2020. In the case of a complaint about a lawyer’s conduct in relation to tribunal or court proceedings, it may include raising the matter with the decision maker or lodging an appeal.