Lawyer misconduct/ misrepresentation:

Without consequence or regulation Solicitors will remain acting “above the law” which places every member of society at risk- especially those most vulnerable such as victims of abuse or malicious and vexatious prosecution:

Crown solicitor General issued a media release regarding Justice Ellis finding of Ben Vanderkolk being civilly convicted of misrepresentation and fined $200,000 in the case of: n R v Johnson & Brattle-Hemara Haena [2023] NZHC 2948 issued 20 Oct 2023

https://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Media-Statements/Media-Statement-PNCS-Review-Update-19Dec20237672321.2.pdf

The case law for that decision is here:

https://thelawassociation.nz/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Johnson-2023-NZHC-2948-R-v-Johnson-Anor.pdf

Important to note “The victim” of this offending did not receive this money, rather his solicitors due to “legal fees.”

Ironically, the exact same judge failed to regulate another Crown solicitor charged with misleading justice:

PONSONBY CHAMBERS CASE LAW:

[2023] NZHC 3280
“[27] The proposed prosecution is also without merit. Even assuming Mr Clarke Parker misspoke, or misremembered, Judge Clark’s earlier direction, that is simply not the kind of conduct to which s 111 responds. Putting to one side the requirement in s 112 of the Crimes Act for corroboration (of which there is none) I consider s 111 is concerned solely with declarations or statements made outside a Court context in circumstances in which a statute requires a declaration or a statement to be made in a certain form and before a specified person or class of persons”

[28] Counsel’s participation in a telephone conference with a Judge for the purpose of canvassing procedural matters is, accordingly, not an “occasion on which he is required or permitted by law to make any statement or declaration before any officer or person authorised to take or receive it”. And there was, in any event, an obvious remedy available to Ms Dunstan at the time: to draw Judge Clark’s minute to Judge Cunningham’s attention.

https://lnkd.in/gNfhpVTy

In fact, as per the submissions Justice Ellis had before her, the recordings were sought and the issues were raised and ignored- thus the escalation to the High Court in accordance to “rights to justice”
Courts of New Zealand | Ngā Kōti o Aotearoa

Of which the solicitor general was vexed to refer for investigation (as the judge failed this responsible step.)
https://lnkd.in/gKPbGmD9

And on the 10th of January 2024- Justice Rebecca Ellis is promoted to a judge of the Court of Appeal by the attorney General: @Judithcollins https://lnkd.in/gBfwDVji

Article overview: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tazxlpt_ponsonbychambers-justice-law-activity-7212665375572860929-qZcs/

PONSONBY CHAMBERS CASE LAW TO REGULATE SOLICITORS IN NEW ZEALAND AND HOLD THE NZ LAW SOCIETY TO ACCOUNT SINCE 2020, including, but not limited to:

CA452/2022 DFT v New Zealand Law Society And Anor

CIV-2020-404-2497 DFT v New Zealand Law Society & Anor

[2021] NZHC 2080 Kit Toogood [Yo-yo Judge come barrister as required.]- Making an unlawful indefinite order para [51] quashed on 14/02/2024 by Court Of Appeal under NZCA15/2023 – ALSO NOT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE with costs directed to be paid to NZLS!

CIV-2021-404-001171 DFT V CMR

CIV-2021-404-001192 DFT V CMR

CA433/2022 DFT V CMR

CA421/2022 DFT V CMR

NZCA502/2022

SC 114/2022 DTF v Auckland High Court

CIV-2022-004-1552: Dunstan v Attorney-General

CURIOUSLY NONE OF THESE DECISIONS ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN THE DECISIONS SITE, and when the JFO help was asked why their response was:

Over the course of 6 years Ponsonby Chambers Founder, Tanya Dunstan has filed in excess of 80 complaints have been raised with NZLS for unregulated solicitors disregarding their fidelity to the court under s13 and breaching the client care rules, in addition to at least 12 applications to LCRO at a cost of $50 to be obstructed even ONE hearing, alleging “insufficient evidence” [without a hearing there can be no “evidence”] and considering the president of NZLS has taken leave during the complaints process, due to a propensity to advise offenders to destroy evidence- this is highly suspicious:

https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news/law-society-statements/law-society-president-frazer-barton-takes-leave-of-absence

NOTE: AS AN ACT OF PUBLIC SERVICE TO REINSTATE THE PUBLICS CONFIDENT IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM “TO BE SEEN TO BE ACTING JUSTLY” WE- “PONSONBY CHAMBERS” have criminally prosecuted Frazer Barton for ONE CHARGE:

The issue with the LCRO demanding payment to “allegedly review the standard committee failure to hold a hearing to determine any outcome” is: that is appears to be fraudulently obtaining funds on misleading grounds they provide any form of just regulation, which, in preventing a hearing is not only impossible, but also in breach of mandatory regulations under s27 NZBORA 1990 “a RIGHT to justice.” In most if not all cases, the solicitors are not even required to respond to the complaint the NZLS dismisses.

This appears to be in breach of s13 Fair Trade Act 1966 for misleading the public, if not a more sinister offence of a public scam eliciting funds fraudulently. (profiteering from NZLS professional negligence, if not the criminal act of aiding and abetting offenders under s66 Crimes Act 1961.)

Upon reviewing the summary of decisions at LCRO under Dunstan and seeing NOT ONE CASE, we believe it is paramount for the public to seek and receive this information [acknowledging the prevention of a hearing knowingly obstructs evidence being given or tested, preventing due process in breach of s27 NZBORA 1990.]