Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1517] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 As both Dr Worth and the Minister in the chair Mark Burton have said the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill represents a major change from the Law Practitioners Act 1982. Under Part I of the 1982 Act both the New Zealand Law Society and the district law societies had a statutory basis. Under this bill the New Zealand Law Society continues but it is “hail and farewell” to the provincial law societies as they existed or have existed from the time of the Law Practitioners Acts—both the 1982 one and its 1955 precursor and other ones. From my point of view the move to have the New Zealand Law Society and to move away from a statutory basis for the provincial law societies is a good thing because many of the problems with the 1982 Act centred on the fact that there were district law societies trying to do different types of jobs and provide different services for members of the public and those services were provided in a very variegated way because of the different sizes of the law societies. 
As Dr Worth has said the Auckland District Law Society—comprising over half of the number of practitioners in this country—has been able to provide an excellent service to the public which is most important and to practitioners because of its size. But it should be borne in mind that many district law societies in this country are very small ranging from the Westland District Law Society through to the Marlborough District Law Society and others. They are very small indeed and have not been able to do what is required to be done for the public in their area. In fact I think it is a fact that the three largest law firms in this country would be larger than all but a very few of the district law societies as they are currently constituted. 
The New Zealand Law Society continues and as Dr Worth has observed Part 4 outlines the distinction that is to be made between regulatory and representative functions and between regulatory and representative powers. I observe in clause 56 the key point that membership of the society is voluntary and does not impose any liabilities on members but by virtue of having a practising certificate barristers and solicitors will subject themselves to the regulatory functions. 
The regulatory functions are spelt out in clause 57 and they are the key functions that are needed to keep the Law Society going. The only one I intend to comment on is paragraph (e) which deals with the function of assisting and promoting “for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand the reform of the law.” and I simply acknowledge the huge contribution to law reform made by for example the legislation committee of the Law Society over the years. 
It is often thought quite unfairly that lawyers are in it only for the money but the fact of the matter is that large numbers of practitioners over the years have made a very valuable contribution to law reform and not just in the legislation committee. For example last year as a member of the High Court Rules Committee I was involved in a rules reform project. We needed to obtain the services of around 60 practitioners in New Zealand and we asked them to help with the reform of various parts of the High Court Rules. To a person every practitioner approached about assisting with that law reform project actually got involved and made a very valuable contribution. That extremely important contribution to reform of the law will continue under the aegis of the continuing New Zealand Law Society body. 
Clause 59 sets out the various regulatory powers and there is no real magic in that. It can be compared to the 1982 Act. Clause 60 deals with representative powers and again there is no real magic in any of those provisions. It provides for publications such as  
LawTalk 
 to continue to be sent to practitioners and for various periodicals and other things to be sent out and there is no real problem with that at all. 
Clause 64A needs brief mention. That deals with practising fees. It is important because the practising fee is to pay for the regulation; indeed subclause (3) states that the sole purpose of the fee is to fund the regulatory functions and powers of the society not the representative ones. 
Clause 65 is of course necessary because it deals with extraordinary purposes. There may be a need for a levy to deal with an extraordinary regulatory function or power of the society. Clause 66 provides for subscriptions that deal with voluntary membership. 
In summary I think that these changes are good. We have a movement towards a 21st century structure for the legal profession in New Zealand. The provincial law societies may continue in a representative capacity as incorporated societies but the statutory basis for them goes although that for the New Zealand Law Society continues and I welcome this change.