Dr. Michael John Kidd
Barrister
James K Baxter Memorial Chambers
www.kiddlegal.com

The Minister of Justice
Simon Power
Parliament House
Wellington

The Attorney General
Chris Finlayson
Parliament House
Wellington

The Prime Minister
John Key
Parliament House
Wellington

12/2/09

Dear Sirs,

I write with several concerns which appear to have escaped the attention of the legal professional peak bodies. Firstly, the New Zealand Law Society “NZLS” is an undemocratic swill with a committee structure that has not been elected by the members at large. We as practitioners have no control or input into what they are doing.

A Poor Model

The new NZLS model mixes regulation with member’s representation, and each is going to be used to justify the other, so we will be saddled with a huge increase in the essentially unregulated practice fees. It seems the Government must step in and stipulate what the fee (as distinct from the membership fee) will be so that there is some control & real choice for lawyers. The Government must also pick up the tab for the

2/

regulation of the profession under the existing tribunal system as once again, apart from the costs, it is mixing representative functions with regulation. The model is seriously flawed. NSW employs a Legal
Services Commissioner, at public expense, and the model works well and keeps costs down. Lawyers pay more than their fair share of taxes.

Double Dipping

I was one of those who were concerned about double dipping of practicing fees and on behalf of a group of lawyers filed the complaint with the Commerce Commission in October 08. I attach the original application and the reply of the Commission. Morally, it is dubious to say the least.
In addition, there has been some mis-information: Andrew Gilchrist (Vice-President, NZLS Auckland) made somewhat of a misleading statement at the special meeting, 13 November 2008: when he said the
NSW Law Society is subsidized by the interest on Solicitors Trust Accounts and that is why they can offer reduced practicing fees. I knew at the time, from having been a member of that society for some 13 years that I never recalled such interest monies ever passing through their accounts; but assuming he must be correct, I did check, and found from scrutinizing their latest accounts on-line, information that confirms my view. The NSW Law Society does however have a number of profit making enterprises which do reduce the membership fees, but not interest from trust accounts. I am concerned that a senior member of the profession would not take the trouble to research the situation before making such public comments. It confirms that the laize-faire nature - the whole situation has been allowed to drift - whereby small practices are facing large cost increases without adequate representation.

Two law Societies for Auckland which won’t talk to each other

The core issue that I am concerned about is that the Auckland District Law Society “ADLS” has the assets, but the NZLS has practicing-fee setting power, and with regard to membership fees there is little capacity for cross subsidization from commercial trading proposed to be run by the ADLS. Essentially, in the present setup is also scope for cross subsidization between the practicing fees and membership fee as they are set by the same organization, and this is undesirable. As result, the NZ lawyer will bear the brunt of sizable practicing and membership fee increases, and we in Auckland will be saddled with a NZLS "branch office" and the ADLS which do not appear to have a satisfactory dialogue. In these economic times, we can not afford to saddle lawyers, as small businesses, with savage cost increases, and in addition set up a client care regime that actively canvasses complaints about lawyers.

More Confusion

As a legal aid lawyer, I am concerned at the wide spread confusion about the requirement for legal Services Agency “LSA” contracted lawyers (providers) to send out client care forms when assigned by the LSA. After taking an informal survey, as a member of the ADLS Legal Aid committee, I discovered that the majority believe they do not have to send out such forms. I personally send out an abridged version of the NZ Law Society form which is confusing to clients, and I attach this for your information.

3/

However, the above, including the form, is at variance with the remarks of Prof Webb at the above meeting who suggested the full 8 page client care letter should be sent out, complete with all the turgid phrases, to all and sundry; and that if lawyers didn’t send them out they would be dealt with by the Tribunal.

Bringing the Lawyers to Heal As-Part-of-State-Control

In conjunction with the Electoral Finance Act, the former Labour Government had an anti democratic aspect more akin to Communist China, and included a number of anti-lawyer politicians, such as Phil.
Goff, whom I knew personally at University (including his attitudes to the legal profession). The ‘new’ legislation reminds me somewhat of the chapter from Geoffrey Robertson’s “The Justice Game” when he talks about the hobbling of the legal profession in Singapore by Lee Kuan Yew. He achieved this with divide and rule, intimidation, and patronage which rewarded those who were toadies.

Let’s hope you can give priority to fixing this horrible mess.

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael Kidd

© Scoop Media