F E Smith: skimmed it (you know, like John Key skimmed the 2025 report). I would also be at pains to point that most lawyers do a good job. I have seen first hand, however, manipulation of the system which is completely unacceptable (IMHO) – no doubt others have different standards. The profession, on the whole (and the society in particular) has always been extremely arrogant, insular and self-serving. Thankfully that has changed in recent years and the report (if adopted) will further that.

It is only too true that beating up on the legal profession, and defence lawyers in particular, is a popular and populist thing for the MSM to do. That is why these editorials have concentrated on what Dame Margaret has said about the legal aid providers rather than focusing, as they should do, on the fact that an entire Government Agency has been found to be so broken that it is to be disestablished. The failings of the LSA make up the largest section of the report!

Lastmanstanding and Queenstfarmer: have you actually read the full report, and not just the media coverage? The comments from both of you suggest you haven’t. For the most part Dame Margaret concentrates on the failings of the LSA, appearing to blame them for much of the issues with legal aid, rather than the lawyers. Sure, there is some criticism of some lawyers, but Dame Margaret appears to be at pains to point out in the report that most legal aid lawyers are doing a good job. Indeed, most of her issues appear to be with South Auckland (and Palmerston North!). The criticism of lawyers in the report is indeed based on anecdotal evidence only. Dame Margaret does not provide any actual evidence, merely what she has been told by various interested parties. One of those parties is the court staff, who usually can be relied on to dislike defence lawyers as that is the MoJ culture of seeing defence lawyers as a hinderance to justice.

Lastmanstanding, the governance of legal aid providers is not within the ambit of the NZLS. It is the responsibility of the LSA. The LSA has expected the NZLS to do its work for it over the years, but the NZLS has always maintained that this is not their responsibility. Dame Margaret appears to agree with that from a technical point of view.

Edit: You are correct about the dissatisfaction among defence lawyers over the lack of representation from the NZLS. They made a very good submission to the reviewer, but otherwise the defence bar feels like the NZLS has no interesting in supporting it. Most attacks on us are either ignored or agreed with by the NZLS and that is an appalling way to treat its members.

Examples please.

Lastmanstanding – bullshit. No complaint is ever ignored. They cannot be. The regulation of the profession is set out by the Lawyers & Conveyancers Act and signed off by parliament. In my opinion the rules and client care rules are far to focussed on allowing dickhead ex clients with a grudge to waste everyone’s time than actually test competence (or honesty). The ‘defence’ by John Marshall included information on how to complain about corrupt lawyers. Get those complaints.

Well said Tarrant.

A REAL crisis would involve large numbers of people languishing in police cells and court cells without any access to legal advice or representation – as is the case in some countries.

If what is meant is a financial crisis, I do not agree that the increasing legal aid bill of 100+ million for legally aided services (which includes family, civil, and Treaty of Waitangi cases) is excessive. Less so, bearing in mind that the figure is heavily subsidised by lawyers working for free – that’s right, every legal aid case involves time not billed for. And bearing in mind that state prosecutions are steadily increasing. And bearing in mind that Judith Collins wrote out a cheque for 180 million for 600 more police recently without batting an eyelid. Etc.

This is a manufactured crisis to destroy faith and confidence in the independent bar and create controlled, bulk-funded groups of lawyers who can save the government money eg through more guilty pleas. Similar reforms have been tried in the UK with disastrous consequences. Google “legal aid crisis UK” or similar and you will find some very interesting reading.

Its standard MO to say theres a lack of evidence when you dont want to find anything wrong and then face the racists when you point out the bleeding obvious that the bros are on the make

If it is so bleedingly obvious there should be some proof. Do you have any? Just a skerret? If not you should STFU.

And disclosing racist prejudices does not constitute proof.

So instead you quietly shuffle the compliant to the bottom of the in tray and hope it dies.

Face it NZLS have been caught out by Dame Margaret have egg all over their face so John M has come out of the corner fighting to try and deflect the reality.

Any professional body that doesnt “know its members” doesnt deserve to have the right to self regulate. Thats the responsibility it takes for itself. If it cant or wont put in place rigorous and robust mechanisms to protect the reputations of its good members then its a failure

So they ignored complaints and are now exposed as a ineffective dysfunctional professional body who has acted no better than a trade union

I disagree. In fact I know of a number of lawyers who are questioning the representation of the NZLS and its failure to require the Government to actually come up with some proof. The statements from the NZLS appear to accept that corruption has occurred whereas there is no proof.

What ever happened to that basic legal premise “Innocent until proven guilty?” This applies to lawyers too.

So they ignored complaints and are now exposed as a ineffective dysfunctional professional body who has acted no better than a trade union.

The NZLS need to be investigated as to their ability to govern the legal profession. IMHO they dont cut the mustard and need root and branch reform.

It is not a stunning indictment of the legal profession at all.

I beg to differ. The system has been used & abused by lawyers for years. Not all lawyers of course, in fact a minority, but the legal profession has always been one of the most closed, self-defensive and self-serving of all professions and demanding of self-regulation. It hasn’t self-regulated. Sure, the legal aid system has been virtually designed to encourage abuse, but the report is still an indictment (I would say stunning).

“I would not be making this submission if I was in Manukau, but I am applying for funding.”

Defence counsel for an assault accused in the Christchurch District Court, Tony Garrett, explains to Judge Stephen Coyle that he is seeking legal aid funding to get to grips with the huge volume of material on the case — six ringbinders of paperwork including specialists’ reports and four DVDs of interviews. Allegations of lawyers at Manukau misusing the legal aid system were made in a report to the Government this week.

In terms of the editorials – sigh.

THe report is not “littered” with references to “widespread abuse”, “taking backhanders”, “entrenched” positions, “poor relationships” and even, “should be disbarred”. It identifies a possible problem, on generally flimsy evidence, and says if it is true [that a lawyer is acting corruptly] they should be taken out and shot, er, disbarred. This relates to a small but significant minority. I would think most lawyers would agree a minority that gets past fingers to toes would be significant and worth addressing.

It is not a stunning indictment of the legal profession at all. If anything it is far more scathing of the LSA (although decent enough to note that the empowering Act is a shambles and that Labour’s increase in eligibility didn’t help). The reporting of it has, on the other hand, been one sided and sensationalist and a stunning attack on the entire profession.

One of the major issues in identifying the chaff is what process to take. The statutory processes imposed upon District Law Societies and now NZLS were slow and are now slower. They are also akin to the inquisition for anyone unlucky enough to be complained about (fairly or otherwise). LSA shied away from this process but then didn’t do any reviews of its own (perhaps litigation averse). So the contracting body did not exercise its own discretion or avail itself of statutory complaint processes.

And then there is the issue that rates are still below the pre 1990 level. As has been well documented firms have increasingly got out of legal aid and there has been a rapid deconstruction of traditional training methods AND quality providers. There are still those of us who do it because that’s what we are (can’t risk a paper cut in the cut and thrust of commercial conveyancing … ) but there are less and less of us coming through and the quality/experienced barristers are disappearing to judical appointment or retirement (seriously, senior counsel ranks can barely keep up with judicial appointments).

That has lead to significant issues – although I challenge any other government department to produce the results that legal aid lawyers do on less than 1990 rates. The system is close to collapse and there are serious flaws but do you think we would still be policed if the cops were paid and funded at 1990 rates?

Still, whilst the government and the media have everyone in a lather about corrupt lawyers on gravy trains (if anyone sees that train please point it out to me) it detracts attention away from under funding and buys another few years of cheap legal fees.

I still think MPs should be required to use legal aid lawyers at legal aid rates for any issues that arise for them.

Apparently the lawyer that spread the Manukau rumour to Bazley is notorious …

A bit of irony there…

Dame Margaret is spot on with her conclusions. I agree with most of the recommendations and hope Simon Power runs with them.

Apparently the lawyer that spread the Manukau rumour to Bazley is notorious for going to trial with indefensible cases, particularly family violence ones. Having scored a rare high profile leal aid win, the lawyer does indeed seem to be angling to be a major service provider. The new Legal Services Board should audit those who get re-apply for legal aid certification to weed out such lawyers if they have been dragging cases to trial just to pad out fees.

It is a pity as those good, honest practioners of the law will get tarred with the same brush.

Dame Margaret served for years on the risk audit committee of LSA, tasked with assessing risk and monitoring fraud. If there were these problems then why did she not notice them beforehand?

The rumours about Manukau solicitors were spread by one lawyer who is looking to do a bulk funding deal for the work.

If I was a Manukau lawyer I would be suing Bazley and Power in defamation. They have just said that there is an 80% chance that a Manukau practitioner is corrupt and on the take.

The slightest shred of evidence would be welcome.