Perhaps Stephen, NZ requires a legal profession taskforce like this one being held in Australia
 
National Legal Profession Taskforce
c/o Assistant Secretary
National Legal Profession Branch
Attorney-General’s Department
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600

Last August I made a submission to the New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development who were seeking new ideas for regulatory protection of investors. (1)

Although their request was limited to one area of law, I took a blanket approach in seeking fiduciary protection law to ensure everyone at the frontlines of fiduciary power are bound to the same set of rules to ensure common standards of care.

From local financial advisors up through the ranks of powerful bankers, lawyers, judges and politicians, my paper, Fiduciary Protection Law, suggests everyone in fiduciary power must be accountable. If not, for whatever reason, fiduciaries will fail the high standards they claim to uphold.

The warnings I made identified that although rules and regulatory bodies may give the appearance the public are protected, in reality, the failures more often than not are caused by those in positions taking it upon themselves permission to abuse the fiduciary duty of trust and care they are responsible for.

Fiduciary care is a constant duty of care where the interests of the client must come first. It would be abundantly clear, the legal profession have not just failed that responsibility but abused it to extreme degrees. No other profession could ever get away with it.

Perhaps of most importance, I have pushed for better controls of our most important fiduciaries, the judges and politicians, who hide their failings behind the protections of Crown and Judicial immunity.

The Australian Federal government correctly identified the urgent need to control the conflicts of interest financial advisors face. They have in the past had their advice compromised by the greed of hidden higher commissions. This has resulted in clients being offered dangerous investment packages because the advisor have been more interested in higher income irrespective of the dangers and costs the clients incur. With respect, lawyers do exactly the same with their advice.

Therefore I suggest new laws need to reflect the recognition that these are the same dangers a client is liable to when seeking legal advice from lawyers and barristers. Legal advice must be free of the motivations of hidden financial reward by ensuring that matters placed in his care are not dragged out for as long as possible.

I have spent some 30 years at the frontline of business, litigation and politics. During that time I have spent many thousands of hours interacting with government agencies, politicians, lawyers and bankers. I have spent $5.5m as the plaintiff in the equity case of Arklow vs Maclean Privy Council 1999.

From experience I observed a legal society that are not just into time wasting games to improve their incomes, but whom at times produce extremely poor outcomes from which there is no method to appeal given they self regulate and control all areas of complaint. And they do this irrespective of the high ethics they claim to uphold. (2)

Today I wrote an article titled – The legal profession works as a business not a profession. (3)

I hope my experience and advice has at least one good idea for you.

Sincerely

Christopher Wingate

wingatefamily@bigpond.com.au

(1) http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/70165/37.PDF

(2) http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/pdf/JC_Judgments_1999_no_51.pdf  
Arklow vs Maclean, a work of judicial fiction – Google "wingate matakana"

(3) http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/08/legal-profession-works-as-business-not.html