Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Third Reading 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1701] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As Dr Worth said National supports the third reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. In my opinion it is generally a very good piece of legislation although I think it is flawed in a number of respects. 
First let me emphasise the positive points of the bill as it has come out of the Justice and Electoral Committee. First of all Part 1 usefully states the fundamental obligations of lawyers and conveyancers and I think it does so very clearly. That is a new provision and I welcome it. Secondly there is the important and fundamental distinction between misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct which is a welcome expansion of the general area of conduct in the Law Practitioners Act 1982. It is the unsatisfactory conduct of lawyers that causes so much grief to clients even if it does not come within the category of professional misconduct. 
Part 4 is at the very heart of the legislation and provides for the continuation of the New Zealand Law Society. As various speakers have said district law societies will cease to exist at least in their present statutory form. This is a move away from the old provincial model which bedevils so many organisations in this country and I welcome it. Other clauses in Part 4 are standard. They are repeats of what is in the 1982 Act and there is no magic in any of them. 
I generally welcome the provisions of Part 7 that deal with discipline. The New Zealand Law Society is now responsible for maintaining a complaints service. The reasons it is important for the New Zealand Law Society to maintain this responsibility rather than to have the task delegated to district law societies are spelt out in clause 111—particularly I emphasise paragraphs (e) and (f). That will be the model to ensure throughout New Zealand both the consistency and the quality of the complaints service and to provide assistance to lawyers standards committees and to the office of such committees. So to centralise the complaints service and to have that New Zealand Law Society overview even if the standards committees operate in various parts of the country will ensure that there is a national standard. The complaints procedures are much more flexible and I emphasise that it is not just discipline that those committees will be concerned with but also solutions and remedies which at the end of the day is what people want. 
The Minister mentioned the establishment of the new office of Legal Complaints Review Officer. I personally questioned in the Committee stage the need for that especially bearing in mind the other layers of review of decisions. But I accept that if the right person is appointed that person could effectively operate as a kind of legal ombudsman. The tribunal remains but its status is upgraded and that is no bad thing. Its procedures and powers remain basically the same. 
Finally I am still confused by clauses 243 to 247 which deal with certain jurisdictional matters but I am rapidly learning in this place that raising jurisdictional points here is even more hopeless than raising jurisdictional arguments in the court. 
Part 11 deals with certain miscellaneous provisions. I welcome the introduction of the conditional fee. I note that it will not apply to family and criminal work or certain types of work under the Immigration Act. Hopefully that will reduce reliance on legal aid for civil litigation. Finally I note the dissolution of the district law societies and workable provisions for law libraries and I express the hope that within the next 5 years the profession will grapple with this matter and provide a library service to the professions that is worthy of the 21st century because the present set-up simply does not provide that. 
Parts 2 3 6 8 9 and 10 substantially repeat what was in the 1982 Act and I am not going to waste any time on those. I briefly want to refer to what I consider are the flawed parts of the bill. The introduction of conveyancers is referred to in Part 2 and Part 5. From one point of view as a litigator I am reasonably relaxed about the concept of a conveyancer. I take the litigator’s view that it simply means there will be more people who can be sued for professional negligence and that will mean more work. But is there really a need for conveyancers? I think we will have to wait and see but I have my doubts. 
Clause 104 which repeats the present section 61 of the Law Practitioners Act with a change is essentially meaningless. I am disappointed that the Committee did not pick up various submissions I made on that point because it is an example of what often comes out of the House of Representatives—that is meaningless drivel that lawyers then have to contend with over the years. 
Of greater moment are clauses 105 and 106 which introduce Senior Counsel to replace Queen’s Counsel. After my contribution in the Committee stage someone contacted me to say that in New South Wales there has been over the years a move away from the name Queen’s Counsel to Senior Counsel and that it has not caused too much of an upset over there. Indeed some Queen’s Counsel are converting and now want to be called Senior Counsel because it is the young hip thing to do and they do not want to appear fuddy-duddy. But it is not the name that worries me so much as the concept of independence. I do worry that what we have created here undermines the essential independence of the silk particularly by allowing Senior Counsel to practise in law firms. That is a foolish move and one that I think the House will have to revisit. 
My Green Party colleague Mr Tanczos raised a very important matter—and it is a shame it was not properly dealt with in the Committee—that dealt with the State conferring a monopoly on a certain class of person. I think the time is coming as I said in the Committee when we will need to move away from the Attorney-General making these appointments in conjunction with the Law Society and the judges to the judges the Bar Association and the Law Society looking at the question of appointments. 
Generally the bill is good legislation. It reflects the needs of the profession in the 21st century and much more important than the profession it reflects the needs of the public. 
Finally I join with both Minister Burton and Dr Worth in recognising those who have contributed to the passage of the bill. The ministry officials were mentioned by the Minister as was Walter Iles. I should also mention Hugo Hoffman of Parliamentary Counsel Office who has been responsible for the drafting and updating of the bill in recent days. I join with the Minister in his generous comments about the current President of the New Zealand Law Society Chris Darlow and his predecessors for their leadership during the time of transition. I particularly mention Alan Ritchie the Executive Director of the Law Society who has worked so hard on this matter for many many years. He is the first to recognise that there is much more work to be done and I certainly wish his society and him all the best in their endeavours over the next few years. In a rare display of bipartisanship and good manners it is only fair to mention the Hon Mr Goff who was Minister of Justice during the key stages of development of the bill. He too should be thanked for his efforts.