1. No category

Council Brief
Wellington
The monthly newspaper of the Wellington Branch New Zealand Law Society
Issue 445
From the
President
THIS month’s edition of Council
Brief continues our “thematic”
approach arising from Wellington Branch’s strategic planning.
We have been receiving excellent feedback on our March edition on emergency planning,
and on Chris Ryan’s fascinating
interviews with senior practitioners Bill Sheat (in February)
and Melton Prosser (in March).
This month’s theme is Continuing Professional Development.
The results of CPD declarations
are still coming in, and as of Friday
17 April, 94.4 percent of lawyers had
made their CPD declaration. I understand this is a very good result
based on international standards.
There will be a preliminary review
of the scheme later this year.
This month we have a guest columnist, Aaron Martin, the Wellington Branch’s CPD Director and
Council member. My grateful
Guest Column
… from Aaron Martin, Wellington Branch
Council Member and CPD Director
THIS edition of Council Brief
marks the first full year of formal
continuing professional development for New Zealand lawyers –
and what a busy year it has been!
There is so much going on in
the Branch aimed at making it as
easy as possible for our members
to get their 10 hours of CPD each
year, and to do so in a way that is
meaningful for the career of each
individual lawyer. CPD is not only
about building the skills and
knowledge of the profession as a
whole. It is also a great reminder
to think about our own development goals and ensure we are
taking the time to learn new
things and to keep ourselves
current in the fast-changing
world of modern legal practice.
By 9 April 2015 every member
should have completed a declaration of compliance with the
CPD regulations for the last 12
months. The Branch has embraced a “no practitioner left
behind” approach to CPD, with
the CPD Working Group exploring the implementation of distance technology for some
Branch offerings so practitioners
in remote locations or unable to
attend a session of special interest can still take part.
Annette Black, the NZ Law
Society consultant who estab-
lished continuing legal education
within NZLS (now NZLS CLE Ltd)
30 years ago, has played a big role
in the introduction of the new
CPD scheme. In this edition she
provides an overview of the key
themes and points to remember.
Branch Vice President David
Dunbar, Council member and
barrister Felix Geiringer, and
Young Lawyers Committee convenor Jelena Gligorijevic´, offer
some different perspectives on
page 3. As they would be the first
to acknowledge, there will be as
many different perspectives as
there are lawyers. One size does
not fit all when it comes to “lifelong learning”. The myriad lowcost, high-quality CPD offerings
of Branch committees reflect this
broad diversity of opportunities
for personal and professional
growth. We can attend and ask
questions, enjoy the collegiality of
the events, and we can put our
hand up to present on a topic in
our field of expertise. There is a
challenge there for us all.
ISSN 2382-2333
April 2015
An overview of the CPD scheme
CPD highlighted in this edition
thanks to everyone who contributed
to this edition, and in particular the
Branch’s CPD working group of
Aaron Martin, David Dunbar, Wellington Vice President, Jelena Gligorijevic´, convenor of the Young
Lawyers Committee, Felix Geiringer, Steph Dyhrberg, Annette Gray,
Sue Barker and Philip McCabe.
I would also like to pay tribute to
Annette Black, who led the development and implementation of the
CPD scheme. Annette is stepping
down from her consultancy role
with the Law Society. She retired
from her fulltime role some years
ago but has continued to oversee
the implementation of CPD
through its first year. Many of us
will know Annette and that she is
regarded internationally as a leader
in the design and implementation
of effective legal professional development programmes. In the New
Year’s honours list she was awarded
a New Zealand Order of Merit
(ONZM) in recognition of her contribution to legal education. The
profession has much to thank
Annette for and we wish her all the
best for her retirement.
I commend Aaron’s column.
INSIDE:
Councilanalysis
Brief Advertising3
CPD
[email protected]
Internet control 5
‘Romance’
scams 7
Reynolds Advertising
By Annette Black, NZLS Consultant
T
he Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
rules require all lawyers to declare to the Law Society
within five working days after the end of each CPD year
that they have complied with CPD requirements.
This year the final day was Thursday 9 April. If you
haven’t completed your declaration by then it is a
late declaration, and you should submit it as soon as
possible. Continued failure to make a declaration
may mean you will be audited and referred to the
Lawyers’ Complaints Service.
All declarations are made online. If you have
completed your CPD requirements but have not yet
made your CPD declaration, full directions are on
the CPD webpage of the Law Society website –
www.lawsociety.org.nz/cpd .
CPD requirements
To complete your CPD requirements you need to
complete your CPD plan and record – your CPDPR
(Continuing Professional Development Plan and
Record) and the required hours of CPD activities –
usually 10.
Your CPDPR is your personalised professional development plan and includes your:
• Learning needs
• Action plan
• Activities record
• Reflections
– outcomes – what you will do differently as a
result of what you learned
– future learning needs
• Documentation verifying your attendance.
CPD activities may be more varied than many
lawyers realise. CPD hours may come from:
• Participating in courses, seminars, training, oneto-one coaching and study groups
• Lecturing, teaching , instructing – teachers and instructors may include reasonable preparation time
• Writing law-related books/articles
• Preparing and presenting certain submissions.
They may include any topic you can demonstrate
in your CPDPR may assist you to carry out your work
as a lawyer including:
• Knowledge of
– the law
– other relevant topics
– other relevant disciplines
– law and procedures in other countries
• Legal skills
• Personal and practice management skills
• Ethics, professionalism and client care.
But activities must:
• Be verifiable
• Provide for interaction/feedback
• Be planned and structured with a stated purpose
and outcomes
• Be related to your individual identified learning needs
• Not be part of your day-to-day work.
If you are unsure about the requirements, the Law
Society website contains a link to the CPD Rules,
Guidelines to the Rules, examples and templates for
doing your own CPDPR plan along with a 10 step
guide.
If you have completed more than 10 hours of CPD
activities you can carry over up to five hours of CPD
activities into the next CPD year—along with your
CPDPR. Your CPDPR may be carried on seamlessly
from one CPD year to the next, provided you quantify
the CPD hours you have completed at the end of each
CPD year. CPD records must be kept for three years.
❑ More articles on CPD on page 3
It’s not too late!
LAWYERS who have not declared
completion of their required CPD in
the year to 31 March 2015 are still
able to do so.
Law Society Continuing Professional Development Manager Ken
Trass says the vast majority of lawyers have engaged in their professional development, reflected on
their learning and developed some
next steps for their on-going professional development.
There is still time, and provision
in the rules, for the 5.6% who have
not completed declarations to do so.
Mr Trass says you must either file a
late declaration or apply for and be
granted a deferment. “Failure to do
either may result in your being requested to submit your CPD Plan
and Record for audit. Continued
non-compliance may result in your
being referred to the Lawyers’ Complaints Service.”
Late declarations may be made
online in the Law Society Registry in
the same way as those which were
completed on time.
Outstanding declarations in Wellington amount to 5.4 percent as at
Friday 17 April. Around one third of
these are barristers and nearly 70
percent male practitioners.
☛
Annual General Meeting
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Annual General Meeting
of the Wellington Branch, New Zealand Law Society, will be held on
Level 8, New Zealand Law Society Building, 26 Waring Taylor
Street, Wellington on Wednesday 24 June 2015 at 4.00pm
Nominations are called for the following positions:
President (1)
Vice President (2)
Council member (up to 10)
Only original nominations completed on the correct form and
received in the Branch Office by 4pm on Friday 22 May 2015 will
be accepted – electronic copies are not acceptable.
Nomination forms are available to download at:
http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/branches/wellington/documents/
Combined-Nomination-form-and-Notice-of-AGM.pdf
Completed nomination forms should be sent by post to:
The Manager
Wellington Branch NZLS
PO Box 494, Wellington
Or delivered to:
The Manager
Wellington Branch NZLS
Level 3, 26 Waring Taylor Street, Wellington
Full details of the process for making CPD declarations can be found at:
http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-lawyers/regulatory-requirements/
continuing-professional-development
2
Branch News
COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2015
Library News
Useful tips on asking for /
delegating legal research
By Robin Anderson Wellington Branch Librarian
(From Slaw.ca – thanks to John DiGilio)
WHEN delegating legal research tasks, remember to:
• share the facts that lead to the question (or tell someone where they can
find the story of the file),
• relay expectations, including:
o time lines,
o search cost restrictions,
o volume of answer required (do you want a search from Magna Carta
forward or the last 6 months of case law?),
o explain what you already know OR do not want them to spend time
on,
o clarify how you are going to use the research output (send to a judge
may mean different language/citation style than send to a client),
o be specific about format requirements (a hyperlink to an online case
or a Word version of a case with highlighting for colour printing or a
pdf to file with the court).
• if you want the research to be approached from a specific direction, make
that clear,
• seek confirmation that instructions are understood and follow up.
Remember that with asking/delegating research questions, the more
information you give, the better the result you will receive.
Bestcase – Canadian databases – New Search interface
The Library subscribes to the Bestcase suite of Canadian legal databases.
These are available in the research libraries in Auckland, Wellington and
Canterbury plus the Otago Library. The suite includes the Dominion Law
Reports and Canadian Criminal Cases in full as well as summaries of decisions from a variety of sources. There are also pdfs of law reports. The new
search interface is Westlaw Next from Canada and it is much easier to use.
Westlaw NZ databases in the branch libraries
If you are using or trying to use Westlaw NZ databases on branch library
computers and you find that it is not working, or very slow, you can still use
the old Brookers Online platform for a while longer. We are working with
Thomson Reuters to rectify any problems with Westlaw access and speed as
fast as we can.
Wellington Branch Diary April-May
Friday 24 April
Women in Law Committee
Tuesday 28 April
Health Law Committee
Wednesday 29 April
Legal Assistance Committee
Thursday 30 April
Employment Law Committee
Immigration Law Committee
Friday 1 May
Memorial sitting of Court of Appeal for Sir Ivor Richardson, 2.30pm
Education Law Intensive, NZLS CLE, 6.5 CPD Hrs
Wednesday 6 May
Insurance – New Challenges, NZLS CLE Seminar, 1-5pm 3.5 CPD Hours
(Webinar 9.30-11.30am 2 CPD Hrs)
Friday 8 May
IT & Online Law Conference, NZLS CLE Conference, 7 CPD Hours
Monday 11 May
Managing Information Flow, NZLS CLE Webinar 1 CPD Hr
Wednesday 13 May
Employment Law Practitioners’ Dinner, Juniper Restaurant
Thursday 14 May
Courts Committee
Friday 15 May
Criminal Law Committee
Monday 18 May
Employment Fundamentals – Managing the Relationship, NZLS CLE Webinar
1 CPD Hr
Monday-Tuesday 18-19 May
Introduction to Company Law, NZLS CLE Entry Level Programme 13 CPD Hrs
Tuesday 19 May
Family Law Committee
Tuesday-Wednesday 19-20 May
Lawyer as Negotiator, NZLS CLE Workshop 11.5 CPD Hrs
New books at Wellington
Branch NZLS Library
Archbold : criminal pleading, evidence and
practice London : Sweet & Maxwell 2015
KM570.A1 ARC
Bowstead and Reynolds on agency London :
Sweet & Maxwell 20th ed 2014 KN25.A1
BOW
CPD top up day : Auckland - February 2015
Wellington : New Zealand Law Society 2015
KL148.46 NEW
CPD top up day : Christchurch - February
2015 Wellington : New Zealand Law Society
2015 KL148.46 NEW
CPD top up day : Wellington - general
practitioner - February 2015 Wellington : New
Zealand Law Society 2015 KL148.46 NEW
Criminal law : working with intellectually
disabled clients Wellington : New Zealand
Law Society 2015 KM507.Q52.L1 NEW
Disclosure of documents in civil litigation
Wellington : New Zealand Law Society
2015 KN386.L1 NEW
Law of costs Chatswood, NSW : LexisNexis
Butterworths 3rd ed 2013 KN397.K1 DAL
Mann’s annotated Insurance Contracts Act
Pyrmont NSW: Lawbook Co 6th ed 2014
KN290.3.K1.Z14 MAN
Mediation : skills and strategies (NZ edition)
Sydney : LexisNexis 2015 KN398.4.L1 BOU
Proceeds of crime law in New Zealand
Wellington : LexisNexis NZ Ltd ,2015
KM594.6.L1 MCK
R v Milat: a case study in cross-examination
Sydney : LexisNexis Australia 2014
KN391.3.K1 HOW
Sale and purchase of apartments : what’s
trending now? Wellington : New Zealand Law
Society 2015 KN74.L1 NEW
Snell’s equity London : Sweet & Maxwell
33rd ed 2015 KN200.A1 SNE
Social media and the law LexisNexis :
Sydney, Australia 2014 KN347.46.K1 SOC
The law emprynted and Englysshed: the
printing press as an agent of change in law
and legal culture 1475-1642 Oxford: Hart
Publishing 2015 KL401.A1 HAR
Trusts for company and commercial lawyers
Wellington : New Zealand Law Society 2015
KN210.L1 NEW
Winfield and Jolowicz on tort London : Sweet
& Maxwell 19th ed 2014 KN30.A1 WIN
Crossword Solutions
From page 7
Cryptic Solutions
Across: 1 Reductions; 7 Ionic; 8 Lighten; 10
Sweeping; 11 Fort; 13 Casket; 15 Ticker; 17 Iran; 18
Optional; 21 Notable; 22 Irons; 23 Pestilence.
Down: 1 Range; 2 Decipher; 3 Colony; 4 Iago; 5
Network; 6 Dissection; 9 Naturalist; 12 Division; 14
Seattle; 16 Appeal; 19 Noose; 20 Abet.
Quick Solutions
Across: 1 Preference; 7 Eject; 8 Plainer; 10 Exterior;
11 Less; 13 Tussle; 15 Portal; 17 Beer; 18 Prospect; 21
Express; 22 Bravo; 23 Despondent.
Down: 1 Pleat; 2 Entirely; 3 Employ; 4 Elan; 5 Consent;
6 Detestable; 9 Resolution; 12 Possible; 14 Steeple; 16
Prison; 19 Exact; 20 Deep.
MA
DESIGN
m
Answers for puzzles from page 7
Monday 25 May
Evidence – Hostile & Difficult Witnesses, NZLS CLE Webinar 1 CPD Hr
1 (a)the letter “s”
(b)‘incorrectly’ is always
spelled i-n-c-o-r-r-e-c-t-l-y
(c)NOON
(d)the letters ‘e’ and ‘u’ only appear once in
the word ‘millennium’ and, according to the
OED, ‘eu-’ means easily or well
(e)typewriter
Wednesday 27 May
Legal Assistance Committee
Judicial Review, NZLS CLE Seminar 1-5pm, 3.5 CPD Hrs
(Webinar 9.30-11.30am 2 CPD Hrs)
Elder Law Intensive, NZLS CLE Seminar 9am-5.15pm 6.5 CPD Hrs
2 1…Qg4+ 2 Kf2 (if 2 Kh1 then 2…Qf3+ 3
Kg1 {if 3 Rg2 then 3…QxRg2#} 3…Qf1#)
2…Qg7+ 3 Ke1 Qf1# [Vidmar v
Nimzovich New York 1927]
Wednesday 20 May
Wellington Branch Council meeting
Thursday 21 May
FATCA – Implications for Law Firms and Clients, NZLS CLE Webinar 1.5 CPD Hrs
Immigration Law Committee
Thursday 28 May
Human Rights Committee
Friday 29 May
Women in Law Committee
Deadline May Council Brief
Monday 11 May
Gary Born – the world’s preeminent authority on
international commercial arbitration and international
litigation, and renowned author - will hold the New
Zealand Centre for International Economic Law’s
(NZCIEL) Inaugural Senior Visiting Research Fellowship.
Public discussion forums with Gary Born:
The Rainbow Warrior– A Game Changer? A 30 Year Retrospective – Monday
4 May 2015, 5.30pm – 7.00pm, GBLT1, Victoria University Faculty of Law, 55
Lambton Quay. Gary Born acted as counsel for Greenpeace in the Greenpeace v
France arbitration.
Public forum on a Bilateral Arbitration Treaty Regime – Tuesday 5 May 2015,
6pm-7.00pm, Salmond Room, GB219, Level 2, Victoria University Faculty of
Law, 55 Lambton Quay
The Honourable Rex Mason Prize 2014
The Wellington Branch of the New Zealand Law Society as Trustee of the
Honourable Rex Mason Trust advises that it will be accepting submissions for
the Honourable Rex Mason Prizes for excellence in legal writing from 6 April
to 26 June 2015.
To be eligible for selection for the award, submissions must have been:
• published in a New Zealand legal publication
• between 1 January and 31 December 2014
The Trust Deed stipulates that
“in determining the best articles the judges shall be guided by:
i. the educational value of each article
ii. the literary value of each article
iii. the ability of each article to stimulate awareness in young lawyers of
the nature and function of law as seen in and derived from practical
experience
iv. the extent to which each article draws attention to the need for
development of law in times of social change
v. the extent to which each article stimulates the interest of practising
members of the legal profession”
Submissions for the prizes should be sent on the official entry form to:
The Manager
Wellington Branch
New Zealand Law Society
PO Box 494
Wellington 6145
or delivered to:
Level 3 NZLS Building
26 Waring Taylor Street
Wellington 6011
and include the following: (described more fully in the Official Entry Form)
1. the full name/s of the author/authors
2. the full text of the article in hard copy
3. the date on which it was published
4. the publication in which it was published
5. an account of how the article to be submitted matches the criteria set out
in the Trust Deed.
All entries must be accompanied by the official entry form. Download from:
http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/branches/wellington/documents/OfficialEntry-Form.docx
Conferences
April 28-29 2015 – NZ Building and Construction
Law, Auckland. www.conferenz.co.nz
April 30 2015 – The Maritime Law Association
of Australia and NZ Conference, Taupo.
www.mlaanz.org
May 4 2015 – The Rainbow Warrior – a game
changer? NZ Centre for International Law, Vic
Law School 5.30pm. www.victoria.ac.nz/law/
about/events
May 8 2015 – IT & Online Law Conference,
Wellington. www.lawyerseducation.co.nz
May 14-15 2015 – 13th Annual Immigration Law Conference, Auckland.
www.cchlearning.co.nz
May 21-22 2015 – CLANZ Conference, Mahi
Tahi: Working Together, Bay of Islands.
www.clanzconference.org.nz
June 10-11 2015 – Mastering Due Diligence,
Auckland. www.conferenz.co.nz
June 17-18 2015 – Financial Markets Law,
Auckland. www.conferenz.co.nz
June 25-26 2015 – Trusts Conference,
Wellington. www.lawyerseducation.co.nz
June 25-28 2015 – Australasian Association of
Bioethics and Health Law Conference,
Wellington. www.events4you.co.nz
July 13-14 2015 – Youth Advocates and Lay
Advocates
Conference,
Auckland.
www.lawyerseducation.co.nz
July 23 2015 – AMINZ Conference 2015,
Wellington. www.aminz.org.nz
July 23-24 2015 – Competition Matters 2015;
Competition & Regulation Conference,
Te Papa. Commerce Commission.
www.comcom.govt.nz
August 17-18 2015 – Legal Executives
Conference, InterContinental Hotel,
Wellington. www.nzile.org.nz
September 3-4 2015 – Aotearoa Conference
on Therapeutic Jurisrudence, University of
Auckland. http://tjaotearoa.org.nz
September 3-5 2015 – Banking & Financial
Services Law Association (BFSLA) Conference,
Brisbane. http://bfsla.org
September 6-9 2015 – Succession Law, Monash
University Campus, Prato (20 mins from
Florence), Italy. European Legal Conferences.
www.europeanlegalconferences.com.au
September 10-11 2015 – NZ Insurance Law
Assn. Auckland www.nzila.org/conference
September 13-18 2015 – Commonwealth
Judges’ and Magistrates’ Association (CMJA)
Triennial Conference, ‘Independent
Judiciaries, Diverse Societies’, Wellington, NZ.
www.cmja.org
September 24-26 2015 – Resource
Management Law Association (RMLA),
Tauranga. www.rmla.org.nz
CPD
COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2015
3
CPD – ‘The challenge is … the options and opportunity not the hours’
By David Dunbar, Wellington Branch Vice President
F
or many, myself included,
the first full year of the Law
Society’s CPD requirements will
have been a period of experimentation and iteration. For most, it
will have been a question, not of
how to find the required hours,
but what form our CPD will take.
And, in reality, that is as it has always been; for lawyers who have
recognised the value of CPD in
their career, and for those employers who have valued that
development in their staff.
What is new, is the obligation
(and opportunity) to create a
CPD Plan and Record (CPDPR),
and the requirement to take time
to think about your professional
development; reflecting on what
we have learned, and on what
comes next. Whatever form your
CPDPR takes (and there are
many on offer), pick a model that
allows for iterative changes as
your learning needs and professional aspirations evolve.
In this edition of Council Brief,
Annette Black reminds us of the
rules, and those first declarations. Don’t forget, however,
while the rules apply to us all, the
choice of CPD is very personal.
The challenge for us is not to
let the regulatory minimum become a de facto maximum – and
to target the options and opportunity, not the hours. For myself,
the strategies to maximise the
opportunities include the following.
est us. And there is no denying
the value of maintaining currency in our preferred areas of law or
expertise. But let’s not be afraid
to take a wider view and challenge ourselves in areas where
we’re less comfortable, or to look
not just at knowledge but more
broadly at skills. Much CPD now
on offer explores our broader
skills and competencies and the
challenges of law (examples including legal project management and leadership of, or
within, a legal team).
Testing options, and allowing
for change
Our choice of CPD will generally reflect our current position,
career choices and interests, as it
certainly is in my case . However,
another view of CPD is that, having formalised CPDPR targets, it
allows an opportunity to test areas of interest and inform future
career choices.
Take account of where we are
Let’s talk to our employers.
Recognise the link between our
CDPDR and our employer’s targets. After all, our employer swill
often be paying! More than that,
the CPD rules allow and encourage that alignment, and our employers will see the benefit of
maximising that.
Take a longer view
Jelena Gligorijevi´c, in her commentary below, notes the challenges and pressures faced for
those new to legal practice, including answering the question;
“what next”? Young lawyers are
not alone in this. Many employers will be looking for evidence of
an applicant’s ability to acquire
new skills, and for broader knowledge that can be applied to new
areas of practice. Our CPDPR can
usefully prompt thinking, planning and preparation for the next
step as we identify professional
Manage breaks in practice
For example, do you plan a
family? Those who have done,
will note the reduced requirements for those who have taken
breaks in their career, but that
does not mean your CPD need to
be paused or your CPDPR put on
hold. For employed lawyers,
committed to returning to practice, or those facing a period away
from practice, the CPDPR allows
an opportunity to consider ways
to bridge the gap, providing for a
planned re-entry to practice.
This could well be done in discussion with an employer, who one
hopes would see the value of
seamless resumption. This may
be one time when peer review
meetings come to the fore; if not
for the CPD hours but the peer
contact and maintenance of currency. This raises the question:
what is on offer to support practitioners returning to practice after
a break of a year or two?
Be flexible and think broadly
Setting stretch targets
It is easy to identify courses
that reflect the things that inter-
development goals and activities
that move from immediate priorities to transferable and marketable skills and competencies.
“Let’s not be afraid to take a wider view and challenge ourselves in areas where we’re
less comfortable, or to look not just at knowledge but more broadly at skills…”
London perspective on CPD
What is it we do as lawyers? In
reality, our practice is not just
“black letter” law. It’s advocacy,
relationship building, creating
rapport, helping others find solutions, managing a business, and
much more. As we settle into
areas of choice, where there is
perhaps limited opportunity to
expand subject area knowledge,
let’s ask ourselves what other
personal objectives might add
value to our practice. Are you as
technologically savvy as you
By Felix Geiringer
A
s part of Council Brief marking the end of the
first CPD year, I was asked to repeat an
observation I made at last year’s Branch AGM. It
related to experiences while working in London,
where some young practitioners had turned the
CPD requirements into a marketing opportunity.
While I was there, the CPD requirements in
England were very similar to the ones adopted in
New Zealand last year. However, the CPD in that
jurisdiction is in the process of major reform.
Competition for a place in chambers in London
is fierce. Getting a pupillage (a trainee position) is
hard, and most pupils are not offered a place as a
fully qualified barrister. A major factor in making
that last leap can be to show that you are capable
of building your own practice and bringing new
work to chambers – not easy after only a year.
When I started my pupillage, my pupil master
told me that the CPD requirements presented a
great opportunity in this regard. He encouraged
me to prepare a seminar and to offer to deliver it to
some of the solicitor firms.
The law moves quickly. This is the reason we
have CPD. It also means that there are constant
new developments with which new practitioners,
with a little effort, can make themselves familiar
before they are generally known or understood.
This could come, for example, from a significant
court decision or a new piece of legislation. In
2014, there were 30 NZSC decisions that the Court
thought significant enough to accompany with an
explanatory media release. There were 42 amendment acts and 33 new principal acts.
My pupil master’s suggestion was to familiarise
myself with a recent development in an area of law
that interested me. Having done so, I could then
offer to deliver seminars explaining the same development to others. The solicitor firms welcomed
such offers. It helped them keep their lawyers upto-date, and it gave them a free CPD hour.
For me, delivering the seminar also qualified for
an hour’s CPD. More importantly, the seminar was
an opportunity to show the solicitors that I had a
good understanding of that area of the law and the
skills to explain it to others, including the courts on
behalf of their clients.
I met several young barristers who had followed
this advice in London. They had all used it to great
success. Before their peers, they had solicitors
seeking to instruct them by name, and they were
obvious choices for tenancy (a place in chambers).
New Zealand does not have the same dynamic
between chambers and firms. Nevertheless, our
CPD presents young practitioners with a similar
opportunity. Smaller firms should welcome well
prepared seminars on new developments. Many
conferences and workshops organisers will also
welcome offers of contributions from younger
practitioners. Delivering such seminars is also a
good way of showing people in this jurisdiction
that you know your stuff.
could be? Is your client base
coming from an increasingly
diverse ethnic mix, where some
additional language skills might
assist? Are you really as good an
advocate or manager of difficult
clients as you like to think?
Target opportunities to instruct
and inform others
Felix Geiringer, in his comments below, notes the advice he
got in his pupillage to offer seminars. He rightly notes that the law
moves quickly and that efforts to
make yourself familiar with new
areas of law – and to share that
knowledge – will be rewarding.
That can be a target for each of us,
as new and not so new lawyers. A
challenge and opportunity exists
for us all; to senior practitioners –
not just the pupil practitioner –
to look to opportunities to share
specialist knowledge with those
less senior. For myself, having to
explain to others or simply getting discussion going about
health-related regulation, works
two ways. Whatever others learn
in the process (and I hope I
achieve that), my own knowledge
and sense of what I do, and why,
is sharpened and reinforced every time. I hope that I always remain willing to share what I
know, just as I have always found
those senior colleagues I’ve approached willing to share and instruct. I guess that’s what it is, to
be a profession…
‘… building quality legal careers’
– CPD for Young Lawyers
By Jelena Gligorijevi´c
T
he first year of CPD has been a
positive one for young lawyers
in particular. The CPD programme
has given young lawyers the
opportunity to consider the
broader competencies involved in
legal practice, which might not
always be top in mind during the
period of transitioning from study
to profession, and settling into a
new job.
It is well-known that working in
the law can be tough and demanding at the best of times – the
point is to make sure this does not
dilute the satisfaction lawyers get
from their work, and that the difficulties do not put them off a
career in the law. New entrants to
the profession are probably most
prone to feel this pressure, and
that is why it is crucial that young
lawyers maintain an awareness of,
and continue to think about and
discuss, wider issues to ensure
they are able to gain a sense of
stability now, as well as the
confidence that they can progress
their careers in the future.
The breadth of the CPD programme has allowed young lawyers to consider issues around
ethics, work-related stress, time
management and professional expectations. It has also provided a
means for young lawyers to look
at unfamiliar areas of the law, or
look more deeply into their own
specialisations, with the aim of increasing their knowledge and
skills in the law. The Young Lawyers’ Committee’s own panel discussion event on applying the rule
of law to today’s information culture (to be held in May) will itself
be CPD compatible. The additional resource that CPD offers
enables young lawyers to have a
longer-term perspective on their
careers and their future planning.
We hope that the CPD programme continues to provide a
necessary platform for building
quality legal careers.
4
Admissions
COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2015
Admittee Kimberley Foo with Nyap Foo, Rosalene Foo and
Wellington Branch President Nerissa Barber.
Admittee Luana D’Appollonio (middle) from Brazil with Tanja
Gantar and moving counsel Katie Bhreatnach.
Laura Lincoln (left) with her moving counsel Lauren Brazier.
Admittee Tracy Anne Finlayson (right) with moving counsel Heather Sharpes,
and Keith and Susan Finlayson.
Admittee Nicci Coffey from MPI and her moving counsel
Peter Cranney of Oakley Moran.
Admittee Erandi Rangauwa with parents Jay and Siri Rangauwa.
Admittee Anita Van Der Loo, second from right, with her moving counsel
Gracey Campbell, middle, Nick and Lee-Ann Van Der Loo and John Gutsell.
Admittee Sally West, middle, with Nickie West, Cheryl West, Bruce West and Matt Winter.
These pictures were
taken at the Wellington
Branch social function
held on 27 March at
the Wellesley to
welcome newly
admitted members and
their families to the
legal profession.
Admittee Jessica Brown, middle, with Adrian Brown, Kevin Burns,
Joyce Brown and Matthew Brown.
Candidates admitted to the Bar on 27 March 2015
Luana D’Appollonio
Kimberley Cui Yi Foo
Daniel William Hunt
Laura Emer Maire McCaffery
Edda Marie Bacalla Mijares
Megan Frances Young
Sally Anne Newsham West
Edgardo Jr. Peregrino Atienza
Jessica Ashleigh Brown
Josephine Margaret Byrnes
Max Lawrence Clarke-Parker
William Dominic Culas
Michael Charles Barron Dickson
Sarah Louise Gwynn
Diana Rocio Johnson
Rachael Margaret-Anne Jones
Andrew Steven Tsin-on Lee
Kurt Peter McRedmond
Rachel Alice Murdoch
Erandi Hasanthika Kumarihamy
Rangamuwa
James Daniel Tait-Jamieson
Olivia Josephine Johanna Moana Bouchier
Thomas Joseph Bailey Buchanan
Charlotte Averill Christmas
Anna Fabian Devathasan
Caleb Stephen Green
Cameron Russell Gubb
Yemo Guo
Shang Chin Lai
Laura Mary Lincoln
Caleb Dynes McConnell
Jennifer Thiyaporn Sangaroonthong
Matthew Edward Skinner
Cara Betty Sweeetapple Telea
Anita Magaret Van Der Loo
Tracy Anne Finlayson
Kathryn Fiona Gaskell
Beau Hourigan-Johnston
Stacey Robyn Hyland
James Christopher Kane
Barnaby Joseph Locke
Nichola Rachel Coffey Page
Kapil Patel
Oliver Stephen Peacock
Jonathan Keith Rowe
Andrew Thomas Spencer
Philip James Le-Neve Arnold
Admittee William Culas, left, originally admiitted in Kuala Lumpur in 1997, with
Sandra Dawkes, Alun Loo and Fang Sin Loo.
The Solicitors’ Benevolent
Fund – ways to donate
Donations to the Solicitors Benevolent Fund can be made through:
• “Give a Little” http://www.givealittle.co.nz/org/Solicitors,
which will be automatically receipted, or
• by Direct debit: Bank of New Zealand: 02-0506-0101108-097
All donations go directly to the capital reserve. The Solicitors’
Benevolent Fund Trust is registered as a charitable trust
(number CC48709) and has tax deductible status.
If a receipt is required when making a direct debit, please
email [email protected] with your name, the
amount deposited and a contact number to ensure a receipt is
issued and sent to the correct place.
Politics of the Internet
COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2015
5
Report from Busan
The fate of the Internet – who is in control?
Peter Dengate Thrush, former chairman
of the board of ICANN, is a Wellington
barrister specialising in Internet law.
He attended the International
Telecommunications Union’s
Plenipotentiary Conference in Busan in
November 2014, as an industry member
of the New Zealand government’s
delegation. This is his report on
Internet-related aspects of that meeting.
I
n December 2012 an unprecedented
failure of international diplomacy saw a
major telecommunications treaty negotiation fail. The World Conference on International Communications (WCIT) was
convened by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and met in
Dubai. The primary agenda item was the
first review since 1988 of the International
Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs).
The ITRs are described by the ITU as
“…binding global treaty designed to facilitate international interconnection and
interoperability of information and communication services…”
By the end of the meeting, New Zealand, along with more than 80 countries as
diverse as the USA, Japan, Denmark,
Chile, Kenya and Australia had been unable to sign on to the proposed new regulations. The reason was the attempt by the
ITU to introduce Treaty regulations affecting the Internet.
The ITRs were developed before the
global spread of the Internet, which expanded in the 1990s driven by the adoption of its two “killer apps” – email and the
world wide web.
The US-based origins of the Internet
are reasonably well known. US researchers were early leaders on packet-switched
networks in the 1960s, and the ARPANET,
an early precursor of the Internet, was developed as a defence project. Robert
Kahn, and Vint Cerf developed the “internetting” protocol TCP/IP in 1973, which
became the standard technology, with
widespread adoption allowing the creation of the global Internet.
As a result, Internet infrastructure and
protocols were not brought into the mainstream of telecommunication standards,
typically overseen by governments, often
as national monopolies. In the USA, telecommunication was largely in private
hands, so private sector solutions were developed for the Internet. Internet technical standards are set by the Internet
Engineering Task Force, an ad hoc, open
meritocracy of engineers. In 1998 the global Internet community, in response to a
call from the US government, set up the
Internet Corporation of Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN) to manage the allocation and deployment of critical Internet resources (primarily domain names
and IP addresses) and to coordinate the
development of Internet-related policies.
None of this pleased the ITU.
The ITU is the UN’s oldest agency. It
was created in Paris in 1865 as the International Telegraph Union, changing its
name in 1934 and becoming a part of the
UN in 1947. It has 193 States (countries) as
members, represented by their governments. While it has developed international standards on such telecommunications
issues as wifi and satellite broadcasting, it
has had no role in relation to Internet
standards, or Internet resources.
The ITU has been interested in having
an Internet-related role for some time.
Many of its members do not appreciate
the lack of governmental veto in relation
to aspects of Internet polices. Some members do not see ready access and the free
flow of information as a benefit to their
citizens. In return, those involved in Internet governance saw the ITU as old fashioned, with slow, dated processes,
inherently unsuited to the Internet.
ICANN pioneered instead what is known
as “multistakeholder” processes, involving all those affected by a policy in its making, becoming the first global body to
manage an international resource this
way and having governments in an advisory role. This approach has been consistently supported by the New Zealand
government for 16 years, in concert with
over 150 other governments.
Peter Dengate Thrush pictured with ITU secretarygeneral Dr Hamadoun Touré at Busan last
November. When Peter became chair of ICANN in
2007 he began a process of rapprochement
between ICANN and the ITU, working towards
international consensus on issues surrounding
the control of the Internet.
Despite assurances from its SecretaryGeneral, Dr. Hamadoun Toure, to the
contrary, there were concerns leading up
to the Dubai meeting that the ITU would
attempt to insert itself into Internet-related policy making. Leaks from members
prior to the meeting didn’t help: Russian
President, Mr. Putin was reported as saying to Dr Touré:
“We are thankful to you for the ideas
that you have proposed for discussion.
One of them is establishing international
control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the
International Telecommunication Union
(ITU).”
At the Dubai meeting, members did try
to insert clauses into the ITRs that would
have expanded the role of the ITU into Internet-related matters, causing New Zealand and others to decline to sign on to the
new Treaty.
So, the Internet and Telecommunications communities watched with some apprehension as plans were drawn up for the
ITU’s four-yearly “AGM” – its plenipotentiary meeting, in Busan, Korea in November 2014. At these meetings the ITU elects
its senior leadership, sets its budget, and
charts a course for the coming four years.
Early drafts of proposed resolutions again
revealed that some member states wanted
to insert the ITU into Internet related rulemaking. On this occasion the Treaty in
question was the Tunis Agenda, adopted
by the ITU and a number of other multilateral organisations after the World Summit
on the Information Society in 2005. That
set out clearly respective roles for governments in relation to the Internet.
The New Zealand government delegation to Busan worked closely with the delegations of other like-minded delegations
to either oppose attempts to introduce
rules or polices that were outside the remit of the ITU, or to amend them to fit that
remit.
For example, the Russian government’s
delegation proposed changes that would
have resulted in the ITU issuing IP addresses – a task currently performed under ICANN supervision by the Regional
Internet Registries. This proposal was defeated. The Indian government’s delegation proposed sweeping changes to IP
allocation that would have required a restructuring of the Internet’s infrastructure: this too did not proceed. A Latin
American proposal to have the ITU establish standards for Internet exchange
points for peering traffic was defeated, as
were many other attempted expansions of
the ITU role.
It is important to note that these results
were achieved by an international consensus, without a dissenting vote, and
without the drama of the conflict at WCIT
two years previously. In general, the Internet community felt satisfied after the
Busan Plenipotentiary that the Internet
policy and resource coordination role
conducted by ICANN had been recognised and more firmly established at the
Treaty level. The ITU is expected to retain
a vital interest in the “boundary” issues
between telecommunications standards
and the Internet, but hopefully attempts
to have the ITU make Internet regulations
will diminish until they are thing of the
distant past.
Law Society Cricket
Bell Gully team wins back Blundell Cup after 12 years
By John Porter
AFTER the high wind and heavy
rain courtesy of Cyclone Pam, the
weather Gods smiled on Kelburn
park and the match between the
Law Society and Bell Gully was
played on a lively wicket in the
Autumn sun on 18 March.
Bell Gully batted first and
Michael Green compiled an elegant 35 runs, ably supported by
the more agricultural Brendon
Cash with a dogged 21.
Zac Kedgley-Foot struck a fine
30 whilst Irene Peters held up an
end, and the firm reached a total
of 149.
For the Society, Mathew Brown
bowled well, as did Oliver Kirk.
The Belly Gully bowlers, full of
fire and with the advantage of
youth took full benefit from the
lively pitch and had the Law Society batsmen under pressure
throughout.
Phillip Bremer made a quick
fire 29, and Mical Treadwell (having already taken a fine catch in
the outfield in the Bell Gully innings) struck some lusty blows
for 32 but the rest of the Society
11 played like the Black Caps in
the final – falling 29 runs short at
120.
As always, the game was
played in a great spirit and it is
good to see younger members of
the profession making an enthusiastic contribution both on the
field and at the after match function.
This the first time that Bell Gully have won the Sir Denis Blundell
trophy since 2002, and the Society
look forward to the challenge of
recovering the trophy next year.
6
VUW Law Faculty
COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2015
Law Dean signs off, and memories of old Saigon
By Professor Tony Smith,
Dean of Victoria University’s Law School
From the
Dean of Law
THIS Council Brief column,
probably my last as Dean, is being written in Hanoi, and more
specifically in the Metropole Hotel, where writers such as Somerset Maugham and Graham
Greene found inspiration. The
“Hanoi Hilton”, where American
airmen (including Presidential
hopeful Senator McCain) were
incarcerated during what is
known here as “the American
war”, is just a few blocks away. As
it happens, I am here on the fortieth anniversary of what the Viet
Nam News refers to as the Liberation of South Viet Nam and National Reunification, the end, in
effect, of the war. There has been
a certain amount of coverage of
these matters in the local press;
public celebrations are planned.
Under the headline “American
War veterans recall final hours of
the fall of Sai Gon”, the heroes of
the revolution are honoured.
It seems absurd now that we
were as a nation once so hopelessly at odds with these frenetically friendly, hospitable and
positive people. I mention all this
because the Vietnamese war
dominated my time at university,
not least because I was an army
conscript – a “birthday boy” –
since my birth date had been
selected in the ballot for National
Service. The Australians sent
some of their conscripts to war
(even one of their most revered
cricketers was not spared –
Dougie Walters for the cricket
tragics amongst you), and there
was no way of knowing whether
New Zealand might follow suit.
Thankfully, it did not. All that
conflict started 50 years ago – a
lifetime. That is the period for
which I have been closely
involved with the Law, and a couple of my class-mate contemporaries, life-long friends, recently
raised a glass with me to celebrate our milestone.
From a young (pre-teen) age, I
knew that I was fascinated by the
law, avidly reading biographies
of the leading (usually English)
barristers such as Marshall Hall
and Norman Birkett. Cheerful
Yesterdays by OTJ Alpers was a
local work that intrigued me too.
As I made my way through the
degree (at Canterbury), I assumed that I would practise
locally. My eyes and horizon
were widened by Hamish Gray,
the first full-time Dean at Canterbury. Some of my memories of
him are particularly vivid. He
took me to task for using – or it
may be coining – the word “malconstrued” when “misconstrued” would have been more
usual mot juste. As for spelling
“judgment” with an “e” – Hibernian scorn infused his reaction:
“A Christian might spell it with
an ‘e’,” Mr X, “but a lawyer neverrr would”. It was he who first
alerted me to the attractions of
the academic life. To Cambridge
I went, thinking that it was to be
for three years only. Hah…
The Metropole has recently
discovered a bomb shelter hidden in its foundations. How you
could lose a bomb shelter is a bit
of a mystery to me, but my guide
book says that “the hotel became
deplorably run down during the
austere years of state socialism
between 1954 and 1986”, and I
am picking that it happened
then. Joan Baez, one of my student heroines and Jane Fonda
(she was known as “Hanoi Jane”
at one stage, you may remember)
apparently both sought its discomforts at one time or another.
The hotel runs twice-daily tours,
and I hope to be able to find the
time to take one.
The eight and a bit years that I
have been back in New Zealand
and Wellington have disappeared at an alarming rate. The
world in which the current students are educated is utterly different from my own upbringing.
It is infinitely more pressurised
than was ours in all sorts of ways.
Financial concerns lead the way,
and these can result in some students finding it difficult to devote
an appropriate amount of time to
study. They have real concerns
about the longer term future –
finding a job at the end of it all
being topmost of these. The two
greatest changes are undoubtedly the numbers of young women
who study law, and the changes
Smarter Scheduling in District Courts
From Tony Fisher
General Manager District Courts, Ministry of Justice
WITH hundreds of thousands of events
scheduled in New Zealand District Courts each
year, a smarter approach to scheduling is set to
deliver benefits for those that work in and use
the criminal courts.
Traditionally district court users have been
told to come to court in the morning and wait
for their case to be called. The worst case scenario – a wait of up to seven hours. This is not a
good use of the time of our partners such as
Corrections, Police and Lawyers. This is also an
added stress for victims of crime, and a lot to
ask of the family members and friends who
come to support them.
All District Courts with sufficient volume are
moving to a more efficient approach to scheduling.
Rather than being expected to come to court
for the day, people will be asked to come for a
block of time. For example, a district court
might schedule a day’s sentencing events into 3
x 75 minutes blocks. Participants will be asked
to be at court by the start of the time block to
which their event is assigned. By 1 April 2015
sentencing, crown sentencing, case reviews
and jury trial call-over events will be scheduled
into time blocks. Lists will also be time-blocked
shortly after this.
Court staff will be working with local stakeholders to determine scheduling of time blocks
that make sense for each court.
Getting the full benefit from these changes is
dependent on all court users coming to court at
their scheduled time.
Time-blocking has been made easier by a
substantial upgrade to the system used to
schedule cases so a time and date for the next
hearing can be set before the parties leave the
courtroom.
Real time scheduling also paves the way for
future developments, such as providing Police
and Corrections improved visibility to up-todate court schedules and first appearance
availability.
Reducing waiting times also needs to be balanced against the best use of judicial time. Initially this will be addressed by a “morning heavy”
approach to scheduling to ensure that there are
sufficient cases to proceed with. This aligns with
the current national judicial rostering capacities
set by the Chief District Court Judge.
Smarter scheduling will improve the court
experience by reducing the time court users
have to spend in court waiting for their case to
be heard. This is part of delivering a modern,
accessible people-centred justice system.
that have been wrought by the
use of modern technology to afford us access to vast amounts of
legal materials. As late as 1982,
when Glanville Williams wrote
his last edition of Learning the
Law, no mention was made of
the new technology other than in
a section telling the young that
this was a developing sector, and
that they might be better off looking for a job in its confines rather
than embark on the study of the
Law unless they were really determined that the Law was their
destiny.
It is a privilege to have held the
position as Dean of Victoria’s
Law Faculty. My responsibilities
have been too various to capture
in such a limited space, but they
include the need to improve and
develop the environment in
which students are able to flourish, to make the most of the
educational opportunities a university education affords. It has
also involved making sure that
my Faculty colleagues have the
resources with which to provide
the best possible education, and
work in an atmosphere that encourages them to produce worldclass scholarship.
If I had one overall objective at
the outset of my tenure, it was
that VUW Law Faculty would become more widely recognised in
the international legal community of legal scholars. I saw this as a
two-way process. We should be
bringing more of our international colleagues to spend time
in our midst, whether as individual scholars, or as speakers at
conferences organised locally.
Conversely, I hoped that more of
my colleagues would travel, to attend and present papers at international conferences, to hold
visiting Fellowships at Universities worldwide, and so forth.
Whether I have succeeded in
achieving the aspiration is a matter for others to decide, but we
have had tremendous support
for these purposes from individuals and organisations. I will
name them on a later occasion,
when I can make absolutely sure
that I omit none.
Best wishes to all.
The President of the Wellington Branch NZ Law Society
and the editor of Council
Brief, would like to thank
Professor Tony Smith most
warmly for writing columns
on behalf of the Victoria Law
School for the past seven or
eight years. Often provocative, always cogently argued,
and covering a wide range of
subjects, Tony Smith has
challenged our readers and
provided a vital bridge between the Society and the
Faculty which has been very
welcome. We will miss him
and wish him all the best.
Bilateral arbitration treaty and Rainbow
Warrior focus for visiting research fellow
A proposed bilateral arbitration treaty and the 30th
anniversary of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior will be
the focus of a visit from world leading international
arbitrator and litigator Gary Born next month.
Mr Born has been awarded the New Zealand Centre of
Gary Born International Economic Law’s (NZCIEL) Inaugural Senior
Visiting Research Fellowship for 2015 and will visit New
Zealand from 1 to 9 May.
While in New Zealand, Mr Born will discuss his recent initiative –
Bilateral Arbitration Treaty regime – with government representatives
and businesses. This is aimed at addressing the adverse consequences that some businesses are facing because of the structure of the
international litigation system, which is often time-consuming, expensive and inefficient.
He will also give a number of public lectures, co-hosted by Victoria
University, including a panel discussion on the Rainbow Warrior, 30
years since its sinking. Mr Born acted as counsel for Greenpeace in the
Greenpeace v France arbitration, which concluded with an award of
damages in favour of Greenpeace. Other panellists include Dr Gerard
Curry (counsel for Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur), Sir Kenneth
Keith, Bill Mansfield, Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dr Penelope Ridings.
More information on Gary Born’s visit is available at:
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/centres/nzciel/news
Public discussion forums with Gary Born:
The Rainbow Warrior– A Game Changer? A 30 Year Retrospective – Monday
4 May 2015, 5.30pm – 7.00pm, GBLT1, Victoria University Faculty of Law, 55
Lambton Quay. Gary Born acted as counsel for Greenpeace in the Greenpeace v
France arbitration.
Public forum on a Bilateral Arbitration Treaty Regime – Tuesday 5 May 2015,
6pm-7.00pm, Salmond Room, GB219, Level 2, Victoria University Faculty of
Law, 55 Lambton Quay
Community Law
7
COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2015
Love online: advising victims of ‘romance scams’
By Hannah Northover
IN the internet age, when genuine
relationships often develop online, it can be hard to tell whether
love is real. But falling victim to a
“romance scam” can have serious
practical and emotional impacts.
Over the last few years, Community Law has seen an increase in the
number of clients trapped by
romance scammers. The experience of every client adds to our
understanding of this very specific
kind of scam, and means we’re
better able to help other clients in
similar situations. In this article
we share some of what we have
learnt, hoping to help you to support clients in similar circumstances.
We have seen clients who have
lost much more than discretionary income to scammers.
Scammers start with small
amounts of money, but eventual
losses of several thousand dollars
are not uncommon, and clients
even take out loans to meet the
scammers’ demands.
Typically in romance scams,
the scammed person is contacted
using a dating website, social
media or email. The scammer
then gains the affection of the target person and leverages these
emotions first to request money
for things like visa applications
and flights, and then for larger
emergency sums.
What can you do if a client has
been affected by a romance scam?
The starting point should be to
understand the client’s current
point of view. Some clients are
lucky enough to spot the scam
early, others may have already lost
a lot of money or be in serious
debt, and some clients may still be
in thrall to the scammer. If a client
seeks advice (or perhaps just the
witnessing of a signature) and you
have a gut feeling that something
is not right, ask sensitive questions
to find out the full picture of the
client’s concerns.
Witnessing signatures on dodgy
documents
Clients come to us with apparently simple requests to have their
signature witnessed. The documents purport to be prepared by
foreign lawyers and feature a lot of
legalese. Clients are typically happy for us to search the relevant
lawyer register for the “lawyer” involved. That is often a clear way to
show the client that the document
does not check out.
Online detective work
When correspondence provided by the client sets alarm bells
ringing for you, internet searching
can often help your client to begin
to share your concerns.
Direct evidence can be established by looking for distinctive
phrases used by the scammer, and
for email addresses or names
used, and running them through
internet scam databases or just
googling
them.
However,
scammers who have reached a
certain level of “professionalism”
will change their names and email
addresses constantly. Direct evidence linking the correspondence
to past scams can be hard to find.
Circumstantial evidence can
pile up more quickly. Check for inconsistencies, for example email
addresses which don’t match
names or “law firms”. Check for
unprofessional personal email
addresses based in unlikely jurisdictions. Check addresses on
google maps to see if the “law
firm” is based in an industrial
area, or in a government building.
Engage in some simple online detective work and start to suggest to
your client that this all seems suspicious.
To minimise emotional and
financial harm to your client you
need to help them to realise it is a
scam, urge them to cut off contact,
and link them to support services.
It is very unlikely that any money
will be recovered.
You’re not the only one
Once you are convinced it is a
scam, convincing your client can
take longer. For some clients, circumstantial evidence is not
enough. They have been engaged
with the scammer for months,
messaging and skyping, and they
have raised fears with the
scammer and had them allayed
already.
It can be powerful to let the client know that they are not alone.
There is a pattern for these scams.
The pattern works because it plays
to the good, real, trusting, human
nature of your client. Reading
online descriptions of romance
scams and seeing how their
experience fits the mould can show
Continued on page 8
COUNCIL BRIEF CROSSWORD
PRACTISING WELL
You can use this diagram for either the Quick or Cryptic Clues, but the answers
in each case are different. This month’s solutions are on page 2.
Chaplain, Julia Coleman, 027 285 9115
Cryptic Clues
ACROSS
DOWN
1.
7.
1.
See 10 Across
Part of the construction I considered to
be of Greek origin (5)
8. Remove some of the charge to produce a
flashy effect (7)
10 & 1Ac. What may be found at a bargain
sale of brushes! (8,10)
11. The stronghold offered military
resistance, we hear (4)
13. A container for a variety of cakes before
tea (6)
15. Watch the teleprinter (6)
17. Country in which I didn’t dawdle (4)
18. This clue will give you some choice (8)
21. Lacking the potential to be famous (7)
22. Shackles used by those who wish to
drive a long way (5)
23. In sleep etc. it could be a serious
nuisance (10)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
9.
12.
14.
16.
19.
20.
Quick Clues
Firing-place a set distance from the target
(5)
Make sense of French code (8)
Settlement only modified by the company
(6)
Ophelia, Goneril and another
Shakespearian character inside (4)
Radio set-up necessary for trawlermen?
(7)
Sid coming back with a piece for
biological analysis (10)
He has a life-interest in his subject (10)
Splitting up a body of soldiers (8)
State affected by the French city in U.S. (7)
What the campanologist produces, we
hear, to evoke sympathetic interest (6)
This holds the victim in fatal suspense (5)
Lend support to a speculative venture (4)
ACROSS
DOWN
1.
7.
8.
10.
11.
13.
15.
17.
18.
21.
22.
23.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
9.
12.
14.
16.
19.
20.
Choice (10)
Oust (5)
Clearer (7)
Outside (8)
Minus (4)
Struggle (6)
Doorway (6)
Ale (4)
Outlook (8)
Directly stated (7)
Well done! (5)
Dejected (10)
Flattened fold (5)
Completely (8)
Use (6)
Vivacity (4)
Agree (7)
Hateful (10)
Determination (10)
Practicable (8)
Spire (7)
Jail (6)
Precise (5)
Profound (4)
Council Brief Advertising
[email protected]
MA
DES
IG N
!!!!!!!!"
1 What am I if –
a) I am found at the end of
rainbows
b) I am always spelled incorrectly
c) Read, midday, left or right, I
am the same upside-down or
right-side-up
d) I occur easily but, well, only
once in a millennium
e) I am a 10-letter word that can
be typed using just the first
row of letters on a keyboard?
m
Law graduate
CV scheme
scheme to assist law
?^$ THE
graduates into work is still being
by the Wellington
>$ operated
Branch.
=$
Law graduates seeking work
leave their CVs at the Society.
<$ These are available to potential
;$ employers needing staff who
refer to the CVs and choose
:$ can
appropriate graduates.
The work offered need not be
9$
permanent. Any work in a law
8$ office will give graduates experi2 It is black’s turn to move. What
that may be helpful next
should black do?
%@ABCDEFG' ence
time they make job applications.
© Mark Gobbi 2015
8
Notices
COUNCIL BRIEF, APRIL 2015
ROOM AVAILABLE
WILL
ENQUIRIES
Do you want to be part of an established chambers, either full
time or part time?
FOR URGENT ACTION
Featherston Chambers has a furnished room available for 2 – 5
days per week including full door tenancy, for a barrister, who
would join four colleagues, in an elegant professional environment
in a recently renovated historic building close to the courts.
Please contact the solicitors
concerned if you are holding a will
for any of the following:
Facilities include website (http://featherstonchambers.co.nz ),
library, conference room, Wi-Fi, in house CPD
seminars, kitchen, shower, off-street parking.
NEEDHAM, Louise Alice
C/- Te Hopai Home & Hospital,
33 Rintoul Street, Newtown,
Wellington. Retired. Single. Age 85.
Date of birth 11 June 1929. Died at
Wellington 5 December 2014.
Public Trust (Glen Hildreth)
PO Box 31446, Lower Hutt
DX RP42084
Tel 04 978 4809 Fax 04 978 4931
[email protected]
Please email
[email protected]
TAKE A DEEP BREATH
A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP FOR WOMEN
LAWYERS WITH 9 YEARS OR MORE PQE – ‘MID CAREER’
■
The cost of will notices is $50.00 (GST
inclusive). Please send payment with
your notice.
■
Will notices should be sent to the Branch
Manager, NZ Law Society Wellington
Branch, PO Box 494, Wellington.
Council Brief Advertising
[email protected]
Professional development group for mid-career women lawyers
Mary Scholtens QC, together with experienced coach and facilitator
Ava Gibson, offer a confidential Friday lunchtime discussion and
development group over 6 weeks for a small number of women practitioners
(maximum of 8).
Objectives The purpose of this group is to provide a supportive and
wise environment to discuss professional issues, to draw on
collective insight and experience and to learn new
strategies to enhance your practice of the law.
When?
Six lunchtime sessions from 1.00pm to 2.15pm each Friday
from 1 May to 5 June.
Where?
Boardroom, Stout Street Chambers, Level 6, Huddart Parker
Building, 1 Post Office Square, Wellington.
Cost?
$950 + GST (includes light healthy lunches and a 30 minute
individual coaching session).
CPD
Potential number of CPD hours – 6.
For more information or to signal your interest or to register, please visit
www.orbsolutions.co.nz/deepbreath.html or email [email protected]
MARY Scholtens QC and experienced coach and facilitator Ava
Gibson are now offering their
unique form of small-group professional development to women
in “mid-career”. Anyone with
more than eight years’ experience since admission can register
an interest, and Mary and Ava
will endeavour to arrange the
make-up of groups to suit the
needs of the individuals.
The groups are a maximum of
eight women who meet weekly
for six weeks. These confidential
lunchtime sessions aim to provide a “supportive and wise environment” to discuss professional
issues, to draw on collective insight and experience, and to
learn new strategies for ensuring
that we, as women, thrive as we
practise law. The format of week-
ly lunchtime sessions provides
an opportunity for participants
to reflect and review between
sessions.
Before the group begins Mary
schedules a brief introductory
telephone discussion with each
registrant where potential areas
of focus are discussed. These
conversations guide the selection of relevant topics. In previous groups content has included
understanding the factors that
contribute to success, confidence, resilience and wellbeing
as women working in the law; career planning and development;
managing workplace relationships, performance management; and balancing work with
other aspects of life. Relevant articles are made available on each
topic. The confidentiality of the
Continued from previous page
Love online: advising victims of ‘romance scams’
clients they are not alone, but that
this is a scam. Consumer Affairs’
Scamwatch profiles the romance
scammer: “They’re a 31-year-old,
attractive, Christian female, of
mixed ethnicity, looking for an
older male, or a 58-year-old professional male looking for a
younger companion.”
Block the scammer
Communication and money
flow need to be blocked immediately.
It is best to stop all interaction
with the scammer – blocking
phone numbers, email addresses
and social media profiles used.
Prepare the client for the
scammer’s reaction: the scammer
will try to regain the client’s trust
using ever new narratives and
applying emotional pressure.
Strongly advise the client not to
authorise any further money
transfers, to cancel pre-authorised debits, and to contact their
bank. If money transfers did take
place, the client’s bank account
might have been used for money
laundering; in that case, inform
the bank as soon as possible to
avoid criminal prosecution. Contacting the client’s bank might
also help to minimise losses by
stopping further suspicious transactions.
Make sure that the client does
not sign a power of attorney or
any other authorisation.
Victim Support
Coping with a break-up can be
tough. To find out the whole relationship was a scam can be much
harder. Victim Support (0800 VICTIM) can offer the support which
clients are likely to need. Falling
victim to a scam can rock a client’s
faith in human nature and in their
own judgement.
Reporting
Reporting the scam online to
Scamwatch can be a good way for
the client to process the loss and to
take a constructive step to protect
other people by sharing their story.
Another option is reporting the
scam to the police, though this
might be stressful for the client
and the outcome disappointing.
Make sure you do not raise false
hopes of convicting the offender:
scammers disguise their identity
and IP address using fake data and
botnets, and usually operate from
places well outside the reach of
prosecution services.
Next level
The next risk your client faces is
that the scammer, once revealed,
admits it was a scam but asserts
that this time everything is different. They have truly fallen in love.
In this case, sensitively explain that
this too is an established scam
technique. Perhaps for determined
clients, suggest that the usual rules
for lending must still apply: only
lend what you’re willing to lose.
group is emphasised with all participants undertaking to keep
confidential the discussions of
others.
The registration fee includes a
healthy lunch plus an individual
coaching conversation with Ava
once the group has finished. The
coaching assists participants
with integrating learning, reflecting on their ongoing learning
needs, and developing an action
plan for the future.
Previous successful courses
for women lawyers with about 5
to 8 years’ experience since admission were prompted by the
large numbers of lawyers who either leave the profession or find
progression difficult, together
with the alarmingly high rates of
depression reported among
those who stay. Women have attracted particular attention.
Mary and Ava are passionate
about sharing strategies that
help women to flourish in their
chosen environments.
Expressions of interest are invited for courses over the following periods:
Course 2: Friday 1 May to Friday
5 June
Course 3: Friday 7 August to Friday 11 September
More information about Mary
can be found at
www.stoutstreet.co.nz/mary
and about Ava at
www.orbsolutions.co.nz/aboutus
Further information including
feedback from past participants
and a registration form is available
online
at
http://
orbsolutions.co.nz/deepbreath.
Alternatively you can email
[email protected] for
further information.