- R 8.01 Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors (Wellington, New Zealand Law Society, 1998). The rule equates closely with Rule 1.01 of the UK Solicitors' Practice Rules and Paragraph 202 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales.
- See recent comments of the President of the New Zealand Law Society in an open letter to the profession dated 15 September 1998 in which pressure from government and an impending review of the professions generally is cited as a compelling reason to undertake structural and organisational reform.
- Rondel v Worsely [1969] 1 AC 191, Rees v Sinclair [1973] 1 NZLR 236, Biggar v McLeod [1978] 2 NZLR 9, 11 (CA).
- Saif Ali v Sidney Mitchell & Co [1980] AC 198, 229 (HL) per Lord Salmon, Biggar v McLeod [1978] 2 NZLR 9, 11 (CA). A detailed argument for the abolition of such an immunity can be found in Sandra Segal, “It Is Time To End The Lawyer's Immunity From Countersuit”, (1987) 35 UCLA LR 99.
- Sections 56 and 90.
- Section 38 the Disputes Tribunals were created to deal quickly with small claims, although their jurisdiction has recently been extended to enable them to deal with disputes of up to $12 000 by s 6 & 7 Dispute Tribunals Amendment Act 1988 (NZ).
- Section 80 Employment Contracts Act 1991 (NZ).
- Section 13 Family Proceedings Act 1980 (NZ).
- Unreported, High Court, Auckland, 24 September 1998, CP 507/95, 14.
- [1994] Ch 205 (CA).
- Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California (1976) 17 Cal 3d 425. See also Kay Wheat “Lawyers, Confidentiality, Private and Public Interests” (1998) 1 Legal Ethics 184.
- McKaskell v Benseman [1989] 3 NZLR 75.
- McDonald v FAI Unreported, High Court, Auckland, 24 September 1998, CP 507/95, 14.
- McKaskell v Benseman [1989] 3 NZLR 75.
- Kim Economides, “Learning the Law of Lawyering“, Current Legal Problems 1999 (forthcoming) where he advocates subsuming law teaching into “Faculties of Justice” emphasising a need for a more contextual approach to teaching law which recognises the ethical problems and motivations behind legal rules.
- I observe that I have not gone so far as the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct who stated that there are “standards that lawyers should internalise from the earliest stage of education and training”: ACLEC First Report on Legal Education and Training (London, ACLEC, 1996) para 1.19 (author's italics). See also Julian Webb, “Ethics for Lawyers or Ethics for Citizens? New Directions for Legal Education” (1998) Journal of Law and Society 134, 135.
- Brian Brooks, “Ethics and Legal Education” (1998) 28 VUWLR 157. Compare however H. W. Arthurs, “Why Canadian Law Schools Do Not Teach Legal Ethics” in K M Economides (ed.) Ethical Challenges to Legal Education and Conduct (Oxford, Hart, 1998) 271, 274; ACLEC First Report on Legal Education and Training (London, ACLEC, 1996) para 1.19.
- Cotter and Roper Report on Education and Training in Ethics and Professional Responsibility (Wellington, New Zealand Law Society, 1996).
- The body which is empowered to regulate the educational requirements for admission to the profession under ss 31 and 38 of the Law Practitioners Act 1982 (NZ).
- See generally the Cotter and Roper Report on Education and Training in Ethics and Professional Responsibility (Wellington, New Zealand Law Society, 1996), pages 56–59.
Legal Ethics
Volume 2, 1999 - Issue 1