Login
Login

Your trusted CPD partner

Advocacy Ethics - disqualifying conflicts - Online CPD

Advocacy Ethics - disqualifying conflicts -  Online CPD
Add to CPD Planner

 
 
 

Package includes:

Online CPD Module  l  Booklet  l  PowerPoint Presentation

Package Fee (incl GST)

  • $91 - NZLS members and Associate members
  • $121 - Non-members

Note: Access to the online files is via your "My CPD" page. If you would like to purchase multiple packages, please contact us here.

Online CPD Module

Presentation time: 60 minutes

With the current proliferation of activity in this area (whether as a litigation tactic or otherwise), this will be a timely discussion for litigators. It is often not clear when an application for disqualification should or should not be made, or, when facing such a challenge, how to respond.

This module is an up-to-date survey of case law and review of relevant New Zealand Rules of Conduct and Client Care and gain more security when advising clients who wish to make an application to disqualify another lawyer in contentious matters.

Topics covered:
  • Key concepts and sources
  • Applications to restrain
  • What is or is not sufficient to warrant disqualification
  • Defensive lawyering – avoiding problems before they occur.

Learning objectives

After this module you will be able to:
  • Identify where it is appropriate or not to make an application for disqualification.
  • Know how to respond to a disqualification challenge.
  • Assess your own risk of challenge.
  • Know how to advise contentious clients.

Please contact us if you use a dial up internet connection.

Booklet

Authors: Paul Collins, Tim Mullins
Published: 24 March 2015
Pages: 31

Introduction

Any application to debar counsel involves a contest between two interests; the right of a party to instruct counsel of choice, and the obligations of lawyers as officers of the court and as independent counsel in litigation. Lawyers’ obligations in this area also include the professional and statutory obligations to uphold the rule of law and to act in accordance with their fiduciary duties.

The jurisdiction of the High Court to debar counsel was described by the Court of Appeal in the leading case Black v Taylor[1] in the following terms:

The High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to control its own processes except as limited by statute. As an incident of that inherent jurisdiction it determines which persons should be permitted to appear before it as advocate. In determining what categories of person may appear, it does so in accordance with established usage and with what is required in the public interest for the efficient and effective administration of justice...

Another aspect of the inherent jurisdiction is the control of a particular proceeding in the Court. There the Court’s concern is with the administration of justice in a particular case and in the generality of cases and with the associated basic need to preserve confidence in the judicial system. The right to a fair hearing in the Courts is an elementary but fundamental principle of British justice. It reflects the historical insistence of the common law that disputes be settled in a fair, open and even-handed way. It has been a mainspring of the development of administrative law over the past 40 years.

More recently, in Accent Management Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue,[2] the Court of Appeal described the jurisdiction to debar counsel as requiring a high threshold before an order would be warranted, and spoke of the need for the Court to be alert to the misuse of debarring applications:

The court has jurisdiction to debar counsel or solicitors from acting where that is necessary in order for justice to be done or to be seen to be done. Removal will usually be ordered where counsel will not be able to comply with his or duties to the Court: where there is a conflict of interest, or where there is a real risk that a client will not be represented with objectivity. The threshold for removal is a high one, requiring something extraordinary. The Court should guard against allowing removal applications to be used as a tactical weapon to disadvantage the opposing party.[3]

Black v Taylor was decided over two decades ago. Counsel opposing the debarring application on that occasion referred to the undesirable prospect of a “disqualification industry” if a debarring order was made.[4] Although that prediction has not materialised, it is true that there has been a lot of activity in this area over recent years. The purpose of this paper is to identify the underlying principles and to provide guidance about the circumstances in which a debarring application may responsibly be brought or defended, together with some suggestions for how the underlying risks may be managed.
 
[1]     Black v Taylor [1993] 3 NZLR 403, at 408.
[2]     Accent Management Ltd v Commission of Inland Revenue [2013] NZCA 155, [2013] 3 NZLR 374, at [32].
[3]     Accent Management, at [32] (footnotes omitted).
[4]     Black v Taylor, at 420.

PowerPoint Presentation

These are the slides included in the presentation.
Number of Slides: 26

Registrant Details

Use this window to add all the registrants you wish to register on behalf of. If you want to attend the course also, ensure you add yourself as one of the registrants. Make sure you press ‘save’ after adding each new registrant.

Proceed to Checkout

Product display.
  Order by.
Page 1 of 1
Displaying: 1 - 1 of 1 items. Price. Add to cart.

Advocacy Ethics - disqualifying conflicts - Online CPD

Publication Date: 24-Mar-2015

Authors: Paul Collins, Tim Mullins

NZ $121.00
incl GST

Multiple Registration
Product display.
  Order by.
Page 1 of 1
 
CONTACT
INQUIRIES
freephone (within NZ)
0800 333 111

EMAIL 
cle@lawyerseducation.co.nz

PHONE
04 472 7837

FAX
04 463 2986
 
ADDRESS
NZLS CLE Ltd
Law Society Building
26 Waring Taylor Street
Wellington 6011

DX SP 20202
PO Box 5041
Wellington 6140
New Zealand