Photo: 123RF
The Law Society is backing a call for an independent watchdog which will overhaul the way the society investigates complaints against its own lawyers.
A report published by the Independent Legal Review Panel in March called for a new independent regulator that puts the public's wellbeing at the centre of complaints about lawyers.
"In terms of structure, the Law Society is currently a regulator, as well as a membership body. Many believe this dual role doesn't serve the interests of the public or the profession well, with the functions sometimes in conflict with each other," Law Society president Frazer Barton said.
The review found the two roles conflicted with each other, and Barton said that "in principle" the Law Society agreed that the two roles needed to be separate.
"It is important that an independent regulator be absolutely independent of both the government and the profession."
Barton said at present, every complaint went before the Standards Committee, which was comprised of volunteers: "We accept that it's not working efficiently". The current process was too slow and hampered by laws which tied up a lot of resources, he said.
The report suggested complaints should instead be assessed and determined by in-house specialist staff. Barton said that would be "faster and more effective".
The wide-ranging review was sparked in the wake of sexual misconduct at the law firm Russell McVeagh, and found that many lawyers had experienced harassment, bullying, discrimination or racism at work.
The Law Society said after consultation with its council members and the profession, the Law Society had in principle accepted the recommendations.
Although some required further consideration, Barton said no recommendations had been rejected.
Other recommendations in the report included that a Te Tiriti clause should apply to those exercising regulatory functions under that legislation and that the current culture in the legal profession needed to be more inclusive.
Following the report, Professor Ron Paterson, the head of the panel, said the present system, which was introduced 15 years ago, was a compromise and was not working well for lawyers or the public.
Paterson said there was a perception that it was biased toward lawyers.
The Law Society had tended to favour the status quo, but this was understandable because "they're wearing two hats" and the legislation had given them limited powers in key areas, he said.
"So they've tended to be reactive and they haven't been transparent and that's certainly led to a perception which I think has some basis in reality."
Barton told Morning Report a new and independent regulator would serve the public better than the status quo.
The Law Society had been acting as both regulator and representative for its professional members for about 150 years, Barton said.
"We're actually an international outlier on this subject, so there's a lot of logic to it ... It is quite a fundamental change, and ... there's a lot of detail to be sorted out and it will take quite some time.
"It will require a law change, which is why we've had to do this response to the government. So we're waiting now to hear how the government will respond.
"We're supportive if it's completely independent - it must be independent of both the profession and government, because this body will play a very important role for democracy in making sure that appropriate standards are maintained that the rule of law is also maintained."
The new body would be funded by fees paid by practitioners, he said.
"There's a lot of water to pass [under the] bridge yet, but this is the first stage and what we want to see is whether the government is supportive of putting this on the agenda going forward," Barton said.
