Not a lawyer?
September 29th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarIn the Herald’s story on the Wilson decision, they report:
Sir David is a lay person, not a lawyer, but during his inquiries into the complaint he had the assistance of a former Chief Justice of Australia, Murray Gleeson.
Not a lawyer? Well Sir David Gascoigne has a Master of Laws degree. Perhaps he never practised? But as he was Chairman of Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, I guess he is a lawyer after all.
Related posts:
- Lawyer facing ban
- Kiwiblog Stats
- Having a lawyer as Attorney-General
- Who paid for the lawyer and court fees?
September 29th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Lazy journalism in New Zealand… well there’s a freaken shock.
Vote:September 29th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Someone once told me a lawyer is one who tells loys.
Vote:September 29th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Perhaps he never had his CV checked. Was he a job client of Momentum? Does he have a remarkable list of Olympic, Special Forces, and Record Breaking achievements.
Remember 93.7% of Lawyers give the others a bad name!
There are 10x more in Prison in the Western World than Car Dealers
Vote:September 29th, 2010 at 10:32 am
I’m sure the SIS would have cleared him Guy.
Vote:September 29th, 2010 at 10:37 am
The High Court yesterday directed the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to go back to the complaints against Justice Wilson, to look at all of the conduct complained of, form an opinion, and, if the recommendation is to again form a panel, to identify the matter or matters that in his opinion merit the formation of the panel, and give reasons for his recommendation.
That’s fine, they can properly list the issues and form a panel again.
But what about Galbraith QC, who was owed the money by Justice Wilson and knowingly appeared before him as an officer of the court.
He did not disclose said relationship to the court either and according to Deborah Coddington's Husband (a fellow QC), Galbriath had been pressing Justice Wilson for payment in the period before the case.
It was why he remonstrated with Justice Wilson to come clean in the first place.
There is more to this than we are being told and there needs to be full disclosure so that we know the judiciary is capable of looking after their own house.
Vote:Look at attorneys and the double dipping at legal aid in Auckland, apparently they are all at it but we don't hear of wholesale audits?
September 29th, 2010 at 10:53 am
As MikeNZ says, they can just start again if they want to. But the question is will they have the political will to do so? Of course, this is an example of why 75% of the legal profession in NZ opposed the establishment of the Supreme Court.
I see that the UK Supreme Court is one of the quangos that are under review for abolition; can we do the same?
“Look at attorneys and the double dipping at legal aid in Auckland,”
What double dipping? Not being from Auckland that is not something I am familiar with!
Guy Fawkes: “There are 10x more in Prison in the Western World than Car Dealers”
I have seen that sort of comment before on Kiwiblog, although I think it was more lawyers than accountants. It intrigues me; what is your reference, please?
Vote:September 29th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Gascoigne is a practising lawyer and is a consultant at Minter Ellison. The Herald got it wrong.
Vote:September 29th, 2010 at 11:38 am
I’m sure the SIS would have cleared him Guy.
I’d be hoping our SIS have their focus on other matters, not verifying an applicants references on their CV.
Vote:September 29th, 2010 at 11:53 am
SBY the herald getting things wrong is commonplace at the moment. I’m expecting to see page three girls sooner or later.
Vote:September 29th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
It could be the fact he isn’t a practising lawyer (i.e. holding a current practising certificate). You cannot actually hold yourself out to be a Lawyer if you don’t have a current practising certificate. As for the fact he used to be the Chairman of MERW, I wouldn’t read to much into that. Several CEO’s of high profile law firms aren’t actually practising lawyers, which underlies the fact they’re fundamentally businesses.
[DPF: What makes you think he does not have a current practising certificate? And a Chairman of a law firm is always a lawyer. CEOs are different]
Vote:September 29th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
FESmith
Apologies
I couldn’t remember the Attorneys name Chris something or other, very well known.
He was committing fraud by billing for himself but sending underlings and claiming the higher fees off of legal aid.
Vote:he retired?
The comments made in the press was that apparently all the lawyers in Auckland do it, it was nothing unusual.
Personally I think he and all the others should be audited and prosecuted for fraud.
Every damm jack of them and lose their liscences to practice of course, even if it means hundreds of them.
and not just in Auckland too.
September 30th, 2010 at 8:01 am
The comment was in a narrative in a paper in the UK. Therefore I cannot hold that as being fully accurate.
However, in my experience of watching life in General and being aware of successful prosecutions. Lawyers have been very naughty with legal aid funds in those countries that have them. Clients funds are often poorly administered and frequently abused.
Rorts on trust funds and trust fund fees are scarily common. The list is almost endless. When a lawyers goes bad, they do seem to do in with some panache, hence the custodial frequency.
Vote:September 30th, 2010 at 11:56 am
MikeNZ: No probs, but I think the lawyer is selling himself short- the legal aid invoice requires us to say that all work has been done by the assigned person or a person under their supervision. There is a bit of a question as to whether supervision means in court at the time, or overall supervision. I prefer the latter view, as there is no need for the assigned lawyer to turn up to do simple unopposed remand if there is a junior to do it for them. However, it is always safer to bill that bit at the lesser lawyer’s rate. Sometimes that is not possible (given the vagaries of the LSA’s schedule of fees) but I am not sure I would describe it as double dipping. Often the difference is only $5 or $10, anyway.
Guy Fawkes, I don’t agree with your point re lawyers being very naughty with legal aid funds. The NZ situation was supposedly only involving 200 lawyers (which I think is an over-estimate) and mostly in only a couple of courts. The UK hasn’t had many real issues and I don’t think Australia has had any either. Legal aid lawyers generally have nothing to do with rorting trust funds as those are usually the domain of commercial lawyers. Don’t forget that if legal aid has been granted then the client has no funds, so I am not really sure what you are referring to here. But if you find the UK paper I would be most interested in reading it.
And the Herald did get it wrong:
Lawyer Details
Name: Sir David Rendel Kingston Gascoigne
Email:
Preferred Name: David
Organisation Contact Details
Organisation: Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
Position: Employee
Postal Address:
Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
Regulatory Details
Vote:Practising Certificate:
Type: Barrister & Solicitor
Commenced on: 01/07/2010
Expires on: 30/06/2011
Issued on: 01/07/2010