By: Filip Nikolic, Mathew Francis, Emily Whiteside and Alison Cupples

Introduction

On 9 July 2026, the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill received Royal Assent, introducing a series of targeted amendments to New Zealand’s Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA). The changes are primarily designed to improve the efficiency of the complaints process and strengthen the regulation of conveyancing practitioners, alongside other minor technical tweaks.

The headline amendment to the LCA involves shifting the administrative burden of triaging complaints from Standards Committees onto the Lawyers Complaints Service through the introduction of new section 135A.

A new complaints triage process

Previously, a complaint made against a lawyer, former lawyer, or an incorporated law firm had to be referred to a Lawyers Standards Committee when received by the Lawyers Complaints Service.

Under section 135A, the Complaints Service itself must now undertake an initial assessment of every complaint received to determine whether the complaint should be passed to the Lawyers Standards Committee for further investigation or whether no further action should be taken.

A decision to take no further action is based on the same grounds that Standards Committees previously had to consider. In summary, the Complaints Service may decide to take no further action to progress a complaint if:

  • The complaint is very old, and it is no longer practical to investigate it.
  • The issue is trivial.
  • The complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or not made in good faith.
  • The person allegedly affected does not want the matter pursued.
  • The complainant has no real personal connection to the issue.
  • There is another process available that would be a more appropriate way of dealing with the problem.

Further, changes to regulation 9 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, will mean that only complaints deemed serious enough to be referred to a Standards Committee will need to be notified to a practitioner (or law firm), triggering a right to make a written submission in response.

Other key amendments

Aside from the new triage process, the Bill makes a few more notable technical amendments to the LCA. More specifically:

  • Conveyancing practitioners’ undertakings will become expressly enforceable in the High Court. A person affected by a breached undertaking can seek summary judgment, and the Court may order performance of the undertaking, compensation, or other relief
  • Lawyers Standards Committee members, investigators, and Law Society staff who hold practising certificates will not be regarded as providing “regulated services” when carrying out their statutory functions, shielding them from frivolous technical complaints when carrying out their duties in that capacity, and
  • A power of attorney given by a practitioner is automatically revoked when the practitioner whose practice is affected commences practice as a co-director or enters into partnership with another practitioner.

Takeaways

The changes to the way complaints are triaged should, in theory, free up time for the Standards Committees to focus on complaints that are more likely to have substance. Hopefully, this will result in decisions being issued faster by Standards Committees, giving practitioners and insurers a swifter sense of closure, or alternatively, a better indication of long-term risks, exposure, and likely consequences.

Ultimately, whether these benefits arise will depend on how the changes are implemented at an organisational level and the resource available to the Complaints Service to undertake its new administrative duty. It should be remembered that a decision to take no further action is one with a relatively high threshold. There will be a natural tendency to refer complaints to the Standards Committee unless complaints comfortably fall within one of the grounds of the new section 135A, given the key purposes of the LCA are to protect consumers of legal services and maintain public confidence in the legal profession.

Notwithstanding those challenges, we would expect insurers to see a reduction in the notification of claims given consequential amendments to reg 9. Practitioners will only be notified of complaints made against them in cases where it has been decided that the complaint will be referred to a Standards Committee, which should mean that vexatious, trivial, or minor complaints are dealt with before coming to the attention of the affected legal practitioner. Insurers should also benefit from reduced defence costs expenditure as it is only upon notification that practitioners will be informed of their right to provide a written response.

It is also important to note that the changes do not appear to have created a specific review pathway for complainants should the Complaints Service decide to take no further action with their complaint. Technically, only a decision of a Standards Committee (or by a person on its behalf or with its authority) is capable of review. It remains to be seen whether the Complaints Service could properly be considered as acting on a Standards Committees’ behalf or authority, or whether the decision will be treated as final.

Lastly, there is a question as to what will become of the Early Resolution Service, which typically functions within the Complaints Service to identify complaints with the potential to be resolved quickly through direct engagement with the relevant parties prior to Standards Committee referral. While the amendments to the LCA are silent on the matter, the Law Society’s website (as of writing) has not suggested the service will be disestablished or otherwise changed. So, it seems it will be business as usual for the Early Resolution Service as it works through its backlog of complaints.

From our perspective, the amendments to the LCA will be favourable for practitioners, the public, and insurers alike. We welcome the changes and hope their intended policy objectives are achieved.