|
Cheryl Simes - Barrister |
|
NZLS to gain $13m from compulsory levies |
|
Last updated 30 August 2004 © Cheryl Simes |
|
Should NZLS acquire perhaps $6 million from the current fidelity fund (of which NZLS is trustee), for NZLS’ own purposes and benefit? · This is set to happen, under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill now before Parliament · NZLS has persuaded the government that lawyers think it’s a brilliant idea. · Do you agree? Or do you think it should stay in trust for fidelity-fund purposes, or be refunded to contributors? NZLS is also going to retain its current reserves (around $7 million). Those reserves have presumably been built up over several years, from compulsory practising fees. There is no requirement that those reserves be used for regulatory functions, which will otherwise continue to be funded by compulsory levies. The reserves could be ‘reserved’ for representative functions. · Should NZLS make a gratuitous payment from its own current reserves, to lawyers who paid the special levy for Renshaw Edwards claims? |
|
“One cannot help regretting that where money is concerned, it is so much the rule to overlook moral obligations.” (Sir Richard Malins, English jurist, 1878) |
Information...· NEW! Supplementary order paper being promoted by Murray Smith MP (to require NZLS to conduct a binding referendum of contributors) · NEW! Questions and answers in Parliament 29 July 2004 · NEW! Select Committee report on L&C Bill (27 July 2004) (this link takes to the parliamentary site where you can download the report) - note especially the minority views at the end, by Murray Smith MP · NEW! How you can make your views known (in less than 30 seconds) · NEW! results of survey of practitioners (88% say no to using the funds for representative purposes; 91% say no to letting NZLS use the funds as it sees fit) · Background consultation paper (emailed to practitioners in April 2004 with survey questionnaire) - details of the transfer of funds, its implications, the competing arguments, clarification of facts re (lack of) major Renshaw-Edwards surplus, etc · Questions seeking your recollections of the Renshaw Edwards events · My ‘letter to editor’ which Chris Darlow (NZLS President) instructed should not be published in LawTalk · Extracts of unsolicited responses to that ‘letter to editor’ after I emailed it to practitioners · Submissions presented by Waikato Bay of Plenty District Law Society to select committee · Editorial in Waikato Bay of Plenty DLS newsletter Dec 2003 (‘The fidelity fund: What is it about ‘No!’ that NZLS doesn’t understand?’) |
Latest from Parliament18 August 2004: Murray Smith MP is writing to all law firms, asking their views. He is also promoting a supplementary order paper. 29 July 2004: In response to questions in the House from Murray Smith, Hon Phil Goff says he’s satisfied with the move because NZLS says it’s okay and NZLS is the representative body for lawyers and NZLS Council & Board support it unanimously; there is not even a significant minority of lawyers who object, because there were only 4 submissions against it (he didn’t mention that 1 of those was from a DLS representing 700+ lawyers, whose leaders had no mandate to change their mind subsequently). NZLS doesn’t have a conflict of interest, because the Ministry of Justice obtained a legal opinion early on and that opinion said there was no conflict. (Neither I nor Murray Smith has been able to obtain a copy of that opinion.) Full text here of questions/response. 27 July 2004: Select Committee (allows NZLS to take the money—minority opinion by Murray Smith (United Future) says this is a breach of trust and the money ought to stay in fidelity fund or be refunded to contributors. (See ‘Information’ below for link to select committee report including Smith minority report.) NZLS earlier said (to WBOPDLS leaders) that the move was okay because it had made submissions to get rid of the clause that would allow a future special levy if necessary. That clause is still there. A future special levy akin to the Renshaw-Edwards levy is still possible. |
|
TOPICS WITHIN THIS SECTION |
|
‘What is it about ‘No’ that NZLS doesn’t understand?’ - WBOPDLS editorial |