Wilkinson Kate: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:629;Page:1703] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 When we have a bill that has 346 pages 350 clauses seven schedules and a gestation period spanning several years; a bill that encompasses both litigators and non-litigators that introduces a new breed of licensed conveyancers that restructures law societies throughout that provides the discipline and training for two professions and that regulates the activities of lawyers and conveyancers; a bill of such enormity and such magnitude it is no wonder that there may be some details with which some will take issue. 
But we must look at this bill holistically philosophically and positively. As a conveyancing lawyer in my past life I know only too well that conveyancers think differently from litigators. It is no wonder that to organise lawyers has been likened to herding cats. From a philosophical point of view one could view this bill as an envy bill—as an attempt not to trivialise but certainly to underestimate the value of legal work undertaken by conveyancing lawyers. This bill deregulates conveyancing. But it does more than that. It says that licensed conveyancers can do any legal work except give advice relating to court and tribunal proceedings and property relationship agreements. I do have some concerns that the aspects of the bill relating to conveyancing and licensed conveyancers will have the effect of lowering the respect that lawyers are held in without necessarily increasing the respect for licensed conveyancers. We must not build up the profession of licensed conveyancers by bringing down the profession of lawyers. 
 For 26 years I have been advocating that conveyancing is not a rubber-stamping tick-the-box exercise. It is becoming more and more complicated it is involving more and more responsibility and it is becoming more and more underestimated. I am not wishing to demean qualified licensed conveyancers in any way. I am merely trying to emphasise the fact that whoever does the work must be suitably qualified and experienced to do the work. Conveyancing involves an intricate knowledge of the law of contract. It involves an intricate knowledge of the Property Law Act and the Land Transfer Act and of easements leases mortgages guarantees etc. It involves intricate knowledge of other legislation: the Resource Management Act the Building Act and even gasfitters plumbers fire safety and electricians legislation. Also it invariably involves knowledge of different ownership structures company law trust law taxation law and employment law. 
Interestingly enough under English law conveyancing is defined as the transfer of property etc. but it expressly excludes wills. But under this new bill wills will be included. Yet if one gets the will wrong often it is too late for obvious reasons to redraft it and to try to work out what the testator’s intentions were. So licensed conveyancers now need to have an intricate knowledge of wills and associated legislation such as the Family Protection Act the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act and the Property (Relationships) Act. 
It is simplistic therefore to suggest that licensed conveyancers will be involved only in straightforward residential property transfers. I do fear that lawyers and conveyancers are now thrown together under this bill into the same barrel and accordingly it is imperative that robust codes of conduct be established that appropriate rules and standards be made and maintained and that they reflect the critical importance of maintaining the already good reputation of lawyers. I have said it before: we must not build up the conveyancing profession by bringing down the legal profession. 
That brings me to the provisions relating to the two fidelity funds: one for the lawyers the other for the licensed conveyancers. How many licensed conveyancers there will be is anyone’s guess but as they are required to have their own fidelity fund it will be important that there is a sufficient critical mass to enable them to set up a realistically-funded fidelity fund. In practical terms that may not be easy. But this bill places lawyers and conveyancers on the same level playing field and one of the components of that level playing field is each profession having its own fidelity fund. This will not work if only one group the lawyers are in a position to realistically fund the fidelity scheme. 
As the quid pro quo for this bill deregulating lawyers and removing their monopoly to practise conveyancing lawyers will now be allowed firstly to incorporate and secondly to sell real estate both previously prohibited under the Law Practitioners Act and the Real Estate Agents Act. Allowing incorporation merely brings lawyers into the 21st century in relation to business structures. Why should lawyers be orphaned as the only ones who must continue to practise in partnership with its consequential joint and several liability? 
One of the primary purposes of this bill is as we have heard to maintain confidence in the provision of legal services and conveyancing services and to protect the consumers of legal services and conveyancing services. Allowing incorporation should not jeopardise either of those objectives. The public—the client—will still be protected against naughty and bad lawyers and against naughty and bad conveyancers by the usual laws of negligence and by the existence of the fidelity funds. Lawyers will not be able to hide behind the corporate veil completely. 
It is important that the conveyancers’ fidelity fund is on a par with the lawyers’ one. Why should innocent good lawyers give an unlimited guarantee for all other lawyers—for the bad lawyers? It is easy to argue and I have done so in the past especially when I personally contributed my $10000 to the Renshaw Edwards fund. Times have changed since the Renshaw Edwards case. There are now fewer nominee mortgage companies for a start and the fund is now limited and capped. 
It is critically important when one is dealing with other people’s money that every protection is afforded the consumer and the client. The fidelity fund goes some way towards doing this: the money is paid over to the lawyer or conveyancing practitioner the money still belongs to the client and the money must be paid to the client or as the client directs. There are no ifs or maybes—the rules are clear. They are strict and so they must be in order to ensure that the integrity of and confidence in the legal profession is maintained; and so they must be in order to ensure that the integrity of and confidence in the conveyancing profession is earned. Deregulation of lawyers—and I know this represents only a portion of this bill—is fine but only as long as there is no risk of any decrease in standards and no opportunity of any increase in the risk to the consumer.