New Zealand Law Society - FAQs:

FAQs:

Proposed Amendments to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Act) and Practice Rules 

A consultation document outlining the proposed changes to the Act and the Practice Rules is available on the Law Society website and consultation closed at 5.00pm on Friday 26 September 2025.

1. Why is the Law Society proposing changes to the Act and Practice Rules?

The Law Society takes its role as a regulator seriously. The proposed changes to the Act and Practice Rules have been carefully thought through and are intended to improve the regulatory framework for the legal profession. They also aim to protect consumers, enhance public confidence, and respond to feedback from both lawyers and the public. Many proposals reflect recommendations from the Independent Review Panel report or address issues raised regularly with the Law Society, including from lawyers. 

2. Why is the Law Society consulting on these amendments now?

In LawTalk issue 959, the Law Society explained that while it has been told that substantive reform of the Act is unlikely to be a priority in the current Parliamentary term, the Law Society had commenced work to identify what regulatory improvements could be achieved within the current legislative environment. This work includes considering the rules and regulations for lawyers, as well as our internal systems and processes. 

Further, while substantive reform of the Act is not achievable in the short term, there are opportunities for more minor amendments to the Act through omnibus statutes bills. The Law Society consulted with the profession on three amendments in 2021/22 and these are now progressing through Parliament in the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill.

This current consultation is in preparation for future similar legislative opportunities. 

3. Where can I read the full consultation document?

You can access the full consultation document here. We encourage all members of the legal community and the public to review it and provide feedback here.

4. Who should provide feedback?

All members of the legal community, including lawyers, legal executives, those employed by lawyers, and law students, as well as members of the public with an interest in how the profession is regulated, are encouraged to submit feedback. Your input will help ensure the regulatory framework reflects the realities of practice and consumer protection expectations. 

5. What are the key benefits of the proposed changes for lawyers?

  • Fee adjustments without conduct findings: Standards Committees would be able to order a lawyer to adjust their fee without first making an unsatisfactory conduct finding against the lawyer. This amendment will ensure that many lawyers will not have a conduct finding on their record for what is essentially a consumer matter. In addition, we know that lawyers defend cost complaints or seek review by the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) of Standards Committee decisions on fees matters, not necessarily because of an order to adjust the fee charged but because of the unsatisfactory conduct finding required to make the order. The amendment will also help resolve cost complaints more efficiently and reduce the need for LCRO reviews. Any adjustment to fees by a Standards Committee would still need to be made with reference to the reasonable fee factors in Rule 9.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (Conduct and Client Care Rules).
  • Tailored experience requirements: The minimum legal experience required for lawyers to practise on own account would reflect the lawyer’s intended mode of practice. This would ensure the criteria are more aligned to the risk posed by the intended mode of practice and that lawyers are required to meet criteria that reflect their intended plans. Although the specific experience requirements for each mode of practice are yet to be determined, overall, this is anticipated to be a more flexible and fair approach to assessing a lawyer’s ability to practise on own account. It is also expected to benefit groups which, the Law Society understands, feel disadvantaged by the current one-sized fits all approach to legal experience. For example, the proposed change would mean that a lawyer returning to practise following a break would, like others, only need to meet the experience requirement for the specific mode of practice they intend to practice in. If this requirement was shorter than for other higher risk modes, they would be more likely to meet the requirement than they are currently. Those who do not meet the minimum legal experience requirement for their intended mode of practice will continue to be able to apply under regulation 12A.  
  • Protections for lawyers affected by other lawyers’ conduct: Standards Committees would have greater flexibility to disclose complaints information to, and make apology orders in favour of, those affected by a lawyer’s conduct but who do not wish to make a complaint. Often the affected person is also a lawyer. For example, bullying and harassment allegations against lawyers have typically related to conduct directed at other lawyers, often those who are more junior. Under the proposed changes, these lawyers would be able to be kept up to date about, and advised of the outcome of, an inquiry into the alleged conduct, and have the potential to receive an apology. This amendment is consistent with the changes which were made to the Conduct and Client Care Rules in July 2021 which require a designated lawyer to notify the Law Society about unacceptable behaviours without affected parties having to making a formal complaint. Any orders made by a Standards Committee would remain reviewable to the LCRO. 

6. Will lawyers lose any rights under these changes?

No existing substantive rights are being removed from lawyers. While lawyers would no longer be able to seek review by the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) of a referral to the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, they could still apply to the Tribunal for strike-out (and name suppression) on the same grounds as they can currently apply to the LCRO for review. This proposed change is not intended to remove rights from lawyers but will close a loophole in the Act which currently gives lawyers two opportunities to challenge the referral. Although only some lawyers make use of this route, it causes delays to the disciplinary process not only to the detriment of the parties involved but also for any liability findings and subsequent penalty, including in cases concerning sexual harassment. The change would also bring the regulatory system in line with other regulated professions.

Similarly, a lawyer would still be able to ask the LCRO to review a decision by a Standards Committee to appoint an investigator, but only as part of a review of the final determination of the complaint, not at the time the appointment is made. 

7. What is the purpose of the proposed ability to impose bespoke conditions on practising certificates?

The Independent Review panel highlighted that the Law Society’s regulatory tools are currently too limited. They commented that “a modern regulatory framework requires that the regulator has the tools to be able to regulate effectively in the public interest.”

Holding a power to impose bespoke conditions on practising certificates would allow the Law Society to respond more proportionately and flexibly to risk, similar to legal regulators in other jurisdictions. It would replace the current arrangement in which the Law Society asks lawyers to give voluntary undertakings in some cases. Commenting on this arrangement, the Independent Review panel felt that “it is not appropriate that the process is dependent on the lawyer’s prior consent or that the conditions can only be imposed through an application approval process.”

The types of conditions that could be available to the regulator need to be considered in more detail but could include a condition restricting the lawyer’s area of practice, as is often done currently via voluntary undertakings, when the lawyer has no or insufficient experience.  

8. Why are details like the definition of “affected person”, and the proposed minimum legal experience requirements for each mode of practice not outlined in the consultation document?

As the consultation paper explains, the purpose of this consultation process is to seek feedback on whether the proposed amendments are workable and to identify any potential issues. Some details would need to be developed through the legislative process, were the proposals to proceed to that stage.  

9. How will the proposed changes align with other professional regulators?

Many of the amendments would modernise the legal profession’s regulatory framework and bring it into line with other professional regulatory bodies in New Zealand as well as legal regulators overseas. This includes streamlining complaint processes and enabling the regulator to place bespoke conditions on practising certificates.  

10. Will these changes result in more public sharing of complaint outcomes?

No.

The proposed changes to section 188 of the Act will not increase the public sharing of complaint information. The purpose of these amendments is to improve transparency and consistency for a small group of people who have a legitimate need to be kept informed, such as people who have been adversely affected by a lawyer’s alleged conduct but who have not formally complained, including in sexual harassment matters. The other objective is to ensure the Law Society can communicate appropriately with other regulatory and law enforcement agencies about complaint matters, for the purposes of performing their duties. The intention is not to make information related to complaint matters or complaint outcomes public outside of the existing publication framework in the Act and regulations.

Other minor proposed changes to sections 194 and 195 are intended to clarify and make consistent current provisions. These will ensure all related parties who are currently entitled to receive some information about a complaint and have the right to make submissions on it can also receive the final determination. These amendments also do not enable public sharing of complaints information.

11. Could lawyers be forced to apologise to people who didn’t even make a complaint?

Yes, but only in appropriate circumstances where an unsatisfactory conduct finding has been made against the lawyer.

In addition to considering complaints, Standards Committees also consider designated lawyer reports under Rule 11.4 and confidential reports under Rules 2.8 and 2.9 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules and can open own motion inquiries under section 130(c) of the Act, in which case there is no complainant.

The proposed amendment would allow Standards Committees to order a lawyer to apologise to an individual affected by unsatisfactory conduct, even if the individual was not a complainant. This could enable a Committee to order a lawyer to apologise to a junior lawyer who had experienced harassment by the lawyer but who had not formally complained. This further supports the changes that were made to the Conduct and Client Care Rules in July 2021 which require designated lawyers to notify conduct on behalf of a firm. It also ensures those affected can receive some redress without initiating a formal complaint themselves. Importantly, all such orders are reviewable by the Legal Complaints Review Officer.

12. Will minimum legal experience requirements be raised for those applying to practise on own account, and if so, would this be to the disadvantage of minority, rural or other groups of lawyers?

At present, we do not know whether the experience requirement for some modes of practice might be changed from the current minimum requirement (three years of New Zealand legal experience within the past five years). However, the proposal is intended to make experience requirements more flexible and proportionate to the risk posed by the intended type of practice. It is appropriate for the regulatory regime to reflect where risk differs. For instance, if the risk posed by a lawyer who wishes to practise on own account as a sole practitioner with a trust account is different from that posed by a lawyer who wishes to practise as a barrister or to join an established partnership, the regulatory requirements should reflect this.  

13. Is the Law Society trying to erode natural justice and expand punitive powers?

No. The proposals aim to modernise the regulatory system while maintaining procedural fairness for all parties to the complaints process. Several of the proposals were recommended by the Independent Review or are based on extensive feedback received by the Law Society, including from lawyers. They are designed to protect consumers, align with best practice in professional regulation and ensure that trust and confidence is maintained in the regulatory framework for the benefit of lawyers.  

14. What is the consultation process and what happens next?

To read the consultation document, please click here. The consultation process closes on 26 September. The Law Society will publish consultation results, including participation rates from within the profession.

The feedback received about proposed amendments to the Act will inform discussions with the Ministry of Justice if future opportunities to make amendments to the Act arise (similar to the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill currently before Parliament). Any legislative changes to the Act will go through the standard Parliamentary process, including Select Committee review.