Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Article: "Stasi" Law Society exposed

  1. #1
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Dargaville
    Posts
    448
    Blog Entries
    8

    Article: "Stasi" Law Society exposed


  2. #2
    This is absolutely disgraceful. Where is the mainstream sheep media? Where are the other lawyers who ought to know in the recesses of their small brains that they will be next if they do not speak out?

  3. #3
    A lack of agreement between executors of an estate allows for the matter to be taken to court for directions as to how the estate is to be managed.

    The court will not consider why these differences have come about, they will consider that there is conflict between executors.

    The process is then; that all those who have an interest in the estate must have legal representation - appointed by the court. The estate pays for this.

    So when one executor is a lawyer who doesn't do their job or is intentionally obstructive this is not considered.

    What is considered is that there is conflict between executors, this is easy to demonstrate - a simple complaint to the law society would be evidence that there is conflict between executors.

    The lawyer gets this from their buddies at the society then makes the application to the court, the court appoints a lawyer for everyone and the estate is cleaned out.

    The applicant to the court (the lawyer executor) withdraws the application to the court after it has appointed lawyers for everyone mentioned in the will. The estate is emptied due to the amassing fees.

    Nice and neat, legal. Your parents money - gone. We are supposed to respect that, a profession like that who behaves like that, a governing society who knows that this goes on, a standards committee that enables this and judges who know this goes on. The lawyer has ensured that conflict between executers happens, applies to court knowing the outcome from the outset because conflict is played for and intentional.

    How about that for a scam?
    Last edited by flimflam; 02-05-2014 at 02:15 AM.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by flimflam View Post
    ...How about that for a scam?
    It cannot be a scam, as it is standard practice (for many lawyers). Estates are simply seen by lawyers as free fruit on money trees, to be picked.

    Once empty of 'free money fruit' the money tree is discarded.

    Your summary is 100% correct. It is like many other things in the legal fraternity (which includes Judges, Law Society etc), simply "racketeering".

  5. #5
    Thank you. The most incredible aspect of this in my experience was the pure arrogance demonstrated by the lawyer. (other executor)

    He actually performed and acted as though this was his money. He helped himself to fees, although an expense to the estate which must have the approval of all executors - like any estate expense. Not for him though, he simply reached into my parents money and took his so called fees.

    He and I had responsibilities to the estate. To invest any cash and to protect and grow the assets of the estate. His investment strategy was to keep the money in his trust account - for 18 months after probate. There were no challenges to the will. He simply did not take my calls and responded to emails off the subject with utter nonsense. His stance was that he was considering investments.

    He refused to attend arbitration on two occasions which I cajoled the law society to chair. He simply didn't have to attend - so he didn't.

    I informed Grey Power - to help protect their members, I went to Dom Post - what for? They were not interested. A well known politician once said "if you can control the media you can control the people". He was correct, unfortunately it was Adolf Hittler.
    Last edited by flimflam; 02-05-2014 at 11:13 AM.

  6. #6
    Yes, these things need to change but that is nothing new. August 2008 was when the process for complaints changed from the Law Society Complaints Process which of course was a joke. The "standard" of a lawyer's work wasn't considered complain able so narrow was the Law Society complaint consideration.

    The Standards Committie was to change all of that where the standard of a lawyers work was able to now be scrutinized. The standards Committie is or was made up of 6 lawyers (local from the same district as the one being complained about) and a lay person with the Legal Complaints Review Officer sitting over the top of that.

    It used to be that all of the assessment panel were lawyers with a lay observer sitting on top of that. Such a crock really. The reason for change in 2008 was a lack of public confidence. Most people wouldn't know that anything changed in August 2008 because they are worse now than before.

    There are questions over just how arms length the Legal Complaints Review Officer really is from the Society Chums.

    It's really odd that anyone should see this level of assessment and self governance as anything but bad, and a laughing stock for our country on so many levels. Most thinking people (who aren't lawyers, judges or at the troff in some way) see it as a bloody shocker.
    Last edited by flimflam; 05-05-2014 at 07:33 AM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by flimflam View Post
    ...The standards Committie is or was made up of 6 lawyers (local from the same district as the one being complained about) and a lay person with the Legal Complaints Review Officer sitting over the top of that...There are questions over just how arms length the Legal Complaints Review Officer really is from the Society Chums...
    For the avoidance of doubt, on the Legal Complaints Review Officer, the Act states he must not be a lawyer.

    Therefore he is absolutely independent in the publics and MP's eyes.

    Unfortunately, when our brilliant MP's passed the Act they did not notice that the lawyers who drafted the Act inserted in s. 4 a definition of a lawyer. A Lawyers is defined as someone who has a practice certificate.

    So all lawyers who have become Legal Complaints Review Officers since the Act can into effect were not lawyers, as they resigned their practice certificates just before being appointed. The first LCRO, Mr. Webb, before resigning as LCRO reapplied for his Practice Certificate and received it as soon as he resigned.

    The above situation is called the highest standard of ethics, utmost integrity and obvious independence by the Law Society and its members.

    In simply terms screw Parliament and the public, we are protected by the Act we wrote to fleece and abuse the public in whatever way we regularly choose.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 05-05-2014 at 10:18 AM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    For the avoidance of doubt, on the Legal Complaints Review Officer, the Act states he must not be a lawyer.

    Therefore he is absolutely independent in the publics and MP's eyes.

    Unfortunately, when our brilliant MP's passed the Act they did not notice that the lawyers who drafted the Act inserted in s. 4 a definition of a lawyer. A Lawyers is defined as someone who has a practice certificate.

    So all lawyers who have become Legal Complaints Review Officers since the Act can into effect were not lawyers, as they resigned their practice certificates just before being appointed. The first LCRO, Mr. Webb, before resigning as LCRO reapplied for his Practice Certificate and received it as soon as he resigned.

    The above situation is called the highest standard of ethics, utmost integrity and obvious independence by the Law Society and its members.

    In simply terms screw Parliament and the public, we are protected by the Act we wrote to fleece and abuse the public in whatever way we regularly choose.
    A Question: As the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 is administered by the Ministry of Justice and Judith Collins is the Minister, a Lawyer and an MP, and must know that all previous LCRO's were lawyers before they resigned to become LCRO's; is it because of her conflict of interests as a Lawyer and Minister that she knows of this yet has not approached Parliament to correct the Act so as the Law Society cannot endorse it Members appointment to the LCRO position in breach of the intentions of the Act and Parliament?

    Will any journalist ask that question of the Justice Minister on her perceived or actual conflict of interest in this area!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    A Question: As the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 is administered by the Ministry of Justice and Judith Collins is the Minister, a Lawyer and an MP, and must know that all previous LCRO's were lawyers before they resigned to become LCRO's; is it because of her conflict of interests as a Lawyer and Minister that she knows of this yet has not approached Parliament to correct the Act so as the Law Society cannot endorse it Members appointment to the LCRO position in breach of the intentions of the Act and Parliament?

    Will any journalist ask that question of the Justice Minister on her perceived or actual conflict of interest in this area!
    Footnote: Under s. 190 of the Act "The Legal Complaints Review Officer is to be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the NZ Law Society..." , ie Judith Collins and her predecessors who were all lawyers.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    Footnote: Under s. 190 of the Act "The Legal Complaints Review Officer is to be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the NZ Law Society..." , ie Judith Collins and her predecessors who were all lawyers.
    SECOND QUESTION: In integrity v integrity (that is Collins v the Law Society); who has the least integrity or is it so insignificant that it cannot be measured?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •