Monthly Archives: October 2017

Lawyers Complaints Service decision – Proof of corruption by elites in Tribunals Unit

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

LAWYERS COMPLAINTS SERVICE

 

No.                              16544

Concerning                  Part 7 of the Lawyers & Conveyancers Act 2006

And

Concerning                  a complaint received from JR about Sean Kinsler

 

 

Notice of Decision by Central Standards Committee 1

 

 

Background

  1. Ms R was facing a police prosecution for the misuse of a telephone after phoning ACC and complaining about its failure to provide her with services she says she is entitled to.  Mr Kinsler from Meredith Connell has been retained by ACC.

     

    Complaint

  2. Against this background, Ms R complains Mr Kinsler advised ACC not to release the name of her case manager which has prevented Ms R from subpoenaing the case manager as a witness for her defence in her pending court proceedings.  Ms Routhan also says Mr Kinsler is responsible for the charges having been dropped which has deprived her of a forum in which to air her concerns and grievances about ACC.

     

    Issues for Standards Committee

  3. In order to make a finding against Mr Kinsler, the Standards Committee must first determine that Mr Kinsler is in breach of a duty owed to Ms R.

     

    Has Mr Kinsler breached a duty owed to Ms Routhan

     

  4. In view of the Standards Committee, this complaint is based on a misunderstanding and misconception on the part of Ms R.  Ms Kinsler has duties to the Court and to ACC.  Mr Kinsler’s duties include acting on his client’s instructions and it is in the context of those instructions that Mr Kinsler has represented ACC’s interests in the charges faced by Ms R.  ACC is entitled to take a position that does not accord with the position taken by Ms R and is entitled to instruct Mr Kinsler to advance that position, even if Ms R. believes that ACC is being unfair.  For his part, Mr Kinsler is entitled to rely on the instructions provided by his client.
  5. In so far as the charges faced by Ms R. are concerned, those are police prosecutions and it is a matter for the police whether or not they proceed, not Mr Kinsler.
  6. The Standards Committee is not able to assist Ms R. in progressing her concerns about ACC.

     

    Decision

  7. The Standards Committee, having considered the complaint, is of the view that Mr Kinsler’s conduct does not breach any duties owed to Ms R.  The Standards Committee therefore decides to take no further action on the complaint, pursuant to section 138(2) of the Act as in its view no further action is necessary or appropriate.

     

    Right to apply for review…… sets out process for review, which must be within 30 working days.

     

    An application for review must be on the prescribed form and be accompanied by the prescribed fee of $50.

     

    For further information about the LCRO and the review process call 0800 367 6838 (extn 2)

     

    Unless the Standards Committee has directed otherwise this decision must remain confidential between the parties.

    Charlotte van Dadelszen

    Convenor, Central Standards Committee 1

    6 October 2017

    NOTE: I NEVER AGREED TO ANYTHING BEING CONFIDENTIAL AND THIS DECISION IS THE MOST DISGUSTING PIECE OF ELITIST CORRUPTION OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM I HAVE EVER SEEN IN 15 YEARS OF ACTIVISM.  I will be writing a response to this corrupt neo-liberal terrorist garbage.