Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1532] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 There are three parts of Part 6 that I wish to address. The first is to note with pleasure the re-enactment in clause 84(1)(b) of rules that “may require lawyers or any class of lawyers to undertake ongoing legal education relating to the law or the practice of law:”. In my opinion we are fast approaching the time when continuing legal education needs to be mandatory. I acknowledge immediately the great job done by the New Zealand Law Society’s Continuing Legal Education department over many years in providing seminars for practitioners. I acknowledge the huge contribution made to the law by Mrs Annette Black in her over 20 years as head of that department of the Law Society and the work of people like Dick Edwards. But I think that mandatory continuing legal education is appropriate. In the old days people would go into law firms and would receive legal education as part of their training within the firm as law clerks or staff solicitors but increasingly large numbers of lawyers when they come out of law school for example commence practice as barristers sole and have no experience. They are left to their own wits to their own skills and in my opinion these people are a menace. So something needs to be done about it and I express my hope that the Bar Association and the Law Society will address those matters in the very near future. 
The second clause that I wish to address is clause 104 which provides that barristers of the High Court have all the powers privileges duties and responsibilities that barristers have at law. In my opinion that is a garbage clause. It simply means nothing; it is circular. The note below it asks us to compare it with section 61 of the 1982 Act which provides that barristers of the court shall have all the powers privileges duties and responsibilities that barristers have in England. That provision has been the subject of a lot of litigation over the years. I have been involved in cases concerning whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to prevent barristers from acting in a conflict of interest and reference was made to that section. I have also been involved in cases concerning whether the court has an inherent jurisdiction to make barristers personally liable for costs. Again section 61 was referred to. 
It is important that we get clause 104 right. As it is expressed in the bill it simply does not mean anything. That is why I have proposed an amendment to omit the words “have at law” and substitute the words “have in the Commonwealth of Australia”. There are a number of reasons why I have done that. It is appropriate that we cease to look north to England particularly given that the Privy Council has now gone. It is appropriate that we look west to the Commonwealth of Australia because more and more New Zealand practitioners are admitted both in New Zealand and in Australia. I think this is a practical way of giving some meaning to clause 104 because there is no meaning in it at the present time. It is appropriate if one is practising as a barrister on both sides of the Tasman—as I said many people are—that the same rules in relation to barristers apply in New Zealand as in Australia. 
The third point I wish to address deals with Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel. The term Queen’s Counsel is very well known throughout the world. In fact it is sometimes a term of various insurance policies that certain advice must be obtained from a Queen’s Counsel because that term instantly recognises that a certain standard of legal advice will be provided. I do not think it is a particularly good idea to move away from that term and move towards Senior Counsel. 
But of greater moment are the various parts of clause 105 to which I take objection. The first is subclause (2)(a) which deems that it is lawful for a lawyer who practises either alone or in partnership with any other lawyer to be appointed to the rank of Senior Counsel or Queen’s Counsel. Subclause (2)(b) states that it will be lawful for a person who holds the rank of Queen’s Counsel or Senior Counsel to practise in partnership with another lawyer. The essence of the rank of Queen’s Counsel to be appointed as a member of the inner bar is independence.