Scroll Top
10 Old Grimsbury Rd, Banbury OX16 3HG, UK

Lincoln and Stanley Law

Task Description:

800 Words – Case Analysis, What was the reasoning adopted in the Stanley and Lincoln cases regarding the fit and proper person test? Did the judges agree on the approach to be taken? What were the differences in the findings of each case? Reading List: 4) Admission.

Solution

Facts

The New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) will not allow Mr. Stanley, as a rule, can not be admitted to the bar without confession of conduct. Despite the need for expert and personal experience, this recommendation was rejected. Therefore, Stanley is not considered a suitable and worthy person due to the general error record of driving offences from 1978 to 2014.

The Court of Appeal ruled in two cases. The first is whether Clark J will appear in court or have a court order in the Supreme Court. Second, Mr. Stanley is “a good and decent man” to admit to the bar, despite the uncertainty surrounding his future drinking and driving.

Decision

Case 1

In concluding whether the candidate is a suitable and eligible individual, the different issues outlined in s55(1) LCA (fit and eligible individual) were not communicated as compelling considerations.[1] The exam involved a forward-looking centre that explored the applicant’s worth and credibility for what was to come in the future. Earthly colored v New Zealand Law Society [2018] NZAR 1192 set the applicable standards applied to the investigation of a competitor’s eligibility for approval.[2]

It wasn’t a direct oddity, it was the result of significant preparation to contact the police officer. His presentation on NSA Facebook and his message about the police officer’s other key message were clearly meant to compromise and intimidate. After consulting him by the NZLS, and when it was clear that his conduct had seriously compromised his statement, he offered a conciliatory opinion. The Facebook post was made when Lincoln was nearly finished with his legal investigations and was proactively starting his experts course at that stage. The fact that by that time a Court official had taken on his obligations and the exclusive requirements of autonomy and honesty to be demonstrated by lawyers further compounded the inability to understand the issues at hand.

Case 2:

The court ruled on several cases. China, Re Owen, Re Burgees, Ali and Brown. The court upheld Stanley’s accusations, which did not meet the limits of the case, because they arose out of mistrust and the irreversible state of conduct of the idea of ​​direct action. Significant changes are considered impossible. Mr Stanley’s driving offence did not pose a threat to his ability to be a good lawyer compared to Ali and Brown.[3]

Stanley may in any case fulfil the lawyer’s basic promises under the Code. The court closed the gentlemen. Stanley is a man of good character who has a real responsibility to change with his commitment to his field. Stanley appears to be in a position that directly violates the law, which doesn’t mean he still doesn’t fit the bar like Owens.

The court agreed that Mr. Stanley’s dishonest services were put at the forefront of gambling by re-offending, ignoring Stanley’s criminal convictions. Although important

Assuming it has to be repeated, it won’t be a significant gamble for a legitimate phone call. The only case was that the doctor’s ability to advocate was affected by alcohol consumption, and he was not beaten and fired.[4]

Evaluation

The court’s choice to admit Stanley as a lawyer was the right to use the court to explain that Stanley could keep the lawyers’ key promises. Failure to obtain a certificate by NZLS does not disqualify the applicant. The court will decide whether they will be able to fulfil the lawyer’s main promises. Article 55 of the Code reflects the essence of the declaration, including the consideration of a criminal case. More attention should be paid to Stanley’s decision to guarantee the revival of the rule of law. This happened after public scrutiny of the rule of law. For this reason, he considered the option of admitting Stanley. The distraction of the visitor not only shows that he does not have dangerous behaviours trying to demonstrate their good behaviour, it can force people to admit that there should be no local leaders in the bar.

There is no dispute that Mr. Lincoln has endorsement abilities approved by the New Zealand Legal Education Council and, in any event, meets the legal prerequisites of the Lawyers and Carriers Act (Act) 2006.[5] What is at issue is whether there is an appropriate individual who can be regarded as the counsel and expert of the Supreme Court, as expected in Article 49(2)(b) of the Code. The Law Society opposed his application on the grounds that Lincoln had a persistent “frailty” of character, indicating that he was not a suitable and eligible individual to be considered a lawyer and expert.[6]

Recognition of the large number of people convicted in the past could undermine all of New Zealand’s view of what is most needed for legal “trust and reform of the people.” This would be contrary to the revival of the Law. The choice of the court will not change any area of ​​law. The only amendment to the Code would be the option of closing all persons with a criminal record who have been accepted by a bar association.[7] The standards obtained by this court will be used in future cases for the approval of the Bar Association. The Lincoln, whose court has decided to use similar models, but comes with a choice. Many applicable principles must understand the substance of the case, and an appeal to the Supreme Court will eventually explain this.

Bibliography

‘Article 49(2)(B)’ (Health.ny.gov, 2022) <https://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/managed_care/docs/phlart49.pdf> accessed 22 March 2022

‘Article – Billing And Coding: Non-Invasive Peripheral Arterial Vascular Studies (A57593)’ (Cms.gov, 2022) <https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/article.aspx?articleId=57593&LCDId=35761&CntrctrType=9&CptHcpcsCode=93923&kq=true> accessed 22 March 2022

‘Earthly Colored V New Zealand Law Society’ (Justice.govt.nz, 2022) <https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/NZLCDT-11-14-May-2012-Canterbury-Westland-Standards-Committee-v-Tee-publishable.pdf> accessed 22 March 2022

‘Lincoln V New Zealand Law Society [2018] NZHC 3050 At [76]–[77].’ (Forms.justice.govt.nz, 2022) <https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/90/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/6d7a752f-2228-46bd-909b-2d95720fa6b5/6d7a752f-2228-46bd-909b-2d95720fa6b5.pdf> accessed 22 March 2022

‘Stanley V New Zealand Law Society,’ (Courtsofnz.govt.nz, 2022) <https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/SC-41-2019-NZLS-v-Stanley.pdf> accessed 22 March 2022

’13 Lawyers And Conveyancers Act 2006, S 55.’ (Legislation.govt.nz, 2022) <https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0001/latest/096be8ed81b9e767.pdf> accessed 22 March 2022 ’46 USC 30701: Definition’ (Uscode.house.gov, 2022) <https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title46-section30701&num=0&edition=prelim> accessed 22 March


[1] Billing And Coding: Non-Invasive Peripheral Arterial Vascular Studies

[2] ‘Earthly Colored V New Zealand Law Society’

[3] ’13 Lawyers And Conveyancers Act 2006, S 55.’ (Legislation.govt.nz, 2022)

[4] Stanley v New Zealand Law Society,

[5] ’46 USC 30701: Definition’ (Uscode.house.gov, 2022)

[6] ‘Article 49(2)(B)’ (Health.ny.gov, 2022)

[7] Lincoln v New Zealand Law Society [2018] NZHC 3050 at [76]–[77].

Related Posts

Leave a comment

× WhatsApp Us