Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:629;Page:1549] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 We have come to Part 7 of the Lawyers and Conveyances Bill which National is supporting with reservations. Those outside the House who are listening to these events should be in no doubt that National has not rested in its labours to improve the bill. Indeed the epithets “tireless” and “unflagging” would properly characterise the amendments of integrity that National has advanced in the course of this debate. But a stubborn Government in a crowded Chamber will have none of it. Much is the pity. 
As will be apparent from the commentary on the bill National has some reservations about this part and Mr Finlayson has quietly indicated that on behalf of National. I would like to pick up that theme because what we say in the commentary is just this: “National is unpersuaded that the proposed structure is necessarily the best structure although it accepts that the proposal represents a significant improvement on the present system. National considers that the Legal Complaints Review Officer should be reconstituted as a Legal Ombudsman resourced by the legal profession and that there is no need for the proposed Disciplinary Tribunal. The consequence would be that serious cases of wrongdoing could be referred either by the Ombudsman or the proposed Standards Committee to the High Court on the basis that lawyers are officers of the court with obligations to the court. National believes that its proposals are more likely to gain public acceptance.” 
It is interesting to consider the select committee process that prompted changes to Part 7 in the area I am talking about. As introduced clause 107 which deals with the purposes of the part does not have a ranking and the Justice and Electoral Committee decided by majority that that was the preferred approach. What happened is that the majority of the committee ranked the purposes on a “one two three four” basis and the fourth least-ranked purpose was to “preserve the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to strike off the roll and discipline lawyers in their capacity as officers of the High Court.” From National’s perspective we would have wished to see that purpose heightened because one of the ways—and I would suggest quite a powerful way—to stiffen the resolve of lawyers to act with integrity is to remind them of the obligations they owe as officers of the court. But the Labour members could not see that and in the end they ranked the purposes in the way I have described. “More fools they.” I see the Minister in the chair Lianne Dalziel thinking and she is so right. 
Of course as others have said and it is appropriate to repeat it there were major problems in the way district law societies dealt with disciplinary matters. That was not so in the case of the larger law societies because they had the resources and in particular they had the numbers of people to constitute tribunals that acted with integrity and independence. But because there are a number of district law societies of varying population strengths it was difficult for some of the more provincial district law societies to undertake the disciplinary functions—they were too small. Because of the camaraderie associated with those particular districts the district law societies found themselves sitting in judgment on their close friends and neighbours. That makes incredibly difficult the task of judicial determination of what is conduct that crosses the line. National accepts that what is proposed in the bill is an improvement but there could have been a much greater improvement were there a more willing Government. 
I would like to talk for a moment about the overriding nature of ethical obligations because it is particularly relevant to Part 7. The Minister in the chair the Hon Lianne Dalziel is good enough to nod; I think she accepts that that too is a critical aspect of the bill that has not been given sufficient attention. I am sure she would agree it is implicit that in work activity that is characterised as a profession mere compliance with legal obligations and duties falls short of the discharge of the professional function. For that reason codes of ethics are very much a hallmark of the professions. To a significant extent codes of ethics reflect self-interest because of the damage—and I would say taint in the market place—that follows from ethical shortfalls. Such shortfalls often spring from the culture of a law firm—perhaps a law firm where the focus is on winning maximum profits off a client base. When that culture dominates decision making then ethical shortfalls can readily arise. So quality work—and I have spoken about that in the context of the comments I made on the fundamental obligations of lawyers—the duty-of-care concept and ethical conduct should dominate decision making not I would say the blind pursuit of profit. 
In June 2001 Japan released a voluminous report as a blueprint for remaking the country’s legal system. It stated that lawyers should be “persons with kind hearts who can deeply sympathize with the happiness and sorrows of people who are going through their one and only life.” That is truly an expansive ambition and I sense that what we have done in Part 7 falls a little short of that hugely desirable objective.