Canterbury Tales - New Zealand Law Society

Canterbury tales
Canterbury tales
Canterbury-Westland Branch New Zealand Law Society
August 2012, Vol. 18, No. 7
LAUGHTER UNITES STAFF
A happy Branch office
By Zylpha Kovacs
As I am the “newbie” in the Law Society office
I have taken it upon myself to write about
the three girls and the one boy that I have
the pleasure of working with.
Most of you would have had been assisted
by Sandy, Valerie or Susan at some time,
whether it is through their work on the
Standards Committees or organising one of
the many events that are attended by
practitioners — both educational and social,
the many general enquiries that they field
on a daily basis or answering the queries
about admission ceremonies from the young
up and coming lawyers who are all worried
that if they cannot even get the paperwork
filled in to gain admission to the Bar how
will they ever be able to practise law!
The one and only boy, and “The Boss” is of
course Malcolm Ellis. I am sure like me, you
have found them all very friendly, helpful and
always up for a good laugh.
Laughter seems to be the thread that has
woven through their years working together
and it has been quite a few years and a lot
of laughter. Sandy and Valerie both started
in 1989 so that is 23 years each, Susan
started in 1985, left to have her family in
1991 and then came back part time in 1999
and has been back fulltime since 2011.
Malcolm has been the captain of the ship
since 1994 and has ably stood at the wheel
throughout the many changes that have
occurred over the last 18 years.
One of the biggest changes came in 2008
when the separate districts of the Law Society
became one with its head office based in
Wellington. Even though some were unsure
of how it would work in practice, as Malcolm
The NZLS Canterbury-Westland Branch team, Malcolm Ellis, Susan Newman, Sandy
Hopkin, Val McTurk and Zylpha Kovacs.
noted in his Canterbury Tales article last
year, being part of a national body proved
its value during the earthquakes of
September and February.
The Wellington team was able to take over
the immediate concerns until Malcolm and
his team were up and running again. Another
change came about with the retirement of
Ann Gregg in 2011 after 23 years in the
Canterbury Law Society office. Ann can now
be found enjoying her retirement down in
Twizel.
The move from Durham Street to
Homersham Place was a change brought
about by the earthquakes. While we are lucky
to have found a suitable alternative site, like
many of you, it is not the same as being in
the CBD. We do not get as many visitors
and as a consequence the important “gossip”
news often does not reach our ears.
While we do not get as many visitors there
are some that still arrive and keep us
entertained. As I write this, Allister Davis has
arrived in the office with his two dogs, Roan
and Josh.
Continued Page 10
22
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Vino Fino
Photo Caption
President’s Column
“Nothing endures but change” —
Heraclitus
We all expect changes in our lives,
accepting the fundamental truth of
the words of Heraclitus uttered
some two and a half thousand
years ago.
Each month we have a photo caption
competition where we invite you to submit a
caption. The winner will receive two bottles of
wine
sponsored
by
Vino
Fino
(www.vinifinoco.nz, 188 Durham Street).
Send your entry to the Canterbury Westland
Branch New Zealand Law Society, P.O. Box 565,
Christchurch. Or email to canterburywestland@lawsociety.org..nz. All entries must
be received by September 9 2012. The winner
will be announced in the next edition of
Canterbury Tales.
The winning entry for last month’s picture
(below) was submitted by Karen Feltham.
“I wish the Law Society had a better use
for Junior Practitioners than structural
support in case of Earthquakes!”
However change is not fed out to us in
measured spoonfuls. It is delivered in erratic
quantities (a bit like Canterbury rainfall!).
The recent release of the Central Christchurch
Development Unit’s Blueprint for the
redevelopment of the CBD signalled that yet
more changes are in store for the Christchurch
legal profession with the establishment of a
justice and emergency services precinct in the
south west of the Central City.
While it will come as a surprise to many that
the current court building will not be used
beyond 2017, there are clear benefits in having
a centralised hub for justice, police and
corrections functions.
Law firms looking to relocate from temporary
offices in the medium to long term, now have
some certainty about where these services will
be located and in what timeframe. Doing
business at a central precinct will also, I believe,
help restore a sense of collegiality, both within
the profession, and also with staff from key
agencies that the profession deals with.
However I don’t expect all firms will decide to
congregate in this area. The last two years have
taught us we can survive considerable distances
from the courts and the courts, of course, have
got more efficient about interacting with lawyers
via email and telephone for the more
procedural aspects of litigation files. For better
or worse, the need to be just five minutes walk
from the court, is no longer a priority for most
firms.
Another change recently announced does not
bode so well for the profession. Family lawyers
are already adversely affected by changes to
the legal aid regime and the latest proposals
for change to the family court system will further
erode the role of the family lawyer.
Except for urgent applications, the new system
will require parties to participate in paid
counselling before engaging in court processes
(even though counselling is available to parties
under the current regime at no charge).
Lawyers will generally only be involved as a
last resort, when a matter goes to a formal court
hearing.
This reform appears to proceed on the
unspoken assumption that lawyers inflame and
drag out disputes rather than resolve them. That
is simply not my experience.
Good family lawyers do exactly the opposite.
They tell their clients to be realistic and
reasonable. They remind them to think about
the children’s welfare first and they help
marshal and edit information so that only
relevant matters are raised with the other side.
They also ensure that vulnerable clients are not
bullied into accepting inappropriate or unfair
outcomes.
I am therefore not optimistic that keeping
lawyers out of the process will necessarily
achieve better or cheaper outcomes.
These changes will be introduced through
legislation in late 2012. It is important that
family lawyers engage in the submissions
process to ensure the changes do not promote
short term cost savings over good outcomes
for the families involved.
Finally, by the time you read this, we should
have enjoyed celebrating together at the Law
Dinner. At least in one area, we can keep a
good tradition going!
Rachel Dunningham
Canterbury tales
3
Recovery help still available
Hundreds more businesses will
now be eligible for financial
assistance, thanks to a relaxation of
the criteria for the Independent
Advice for Small Business grant.
The grant, which is funded by the Red Cross,
provides up to $750 to help small and family
run businesses access professional legal and
accounting advice in relation to the effect of
earthquakes on their business.
The grant was developed by the Red Cross,
with assistance from Recover Canterbury, and
was launched in January 2012.
The Red Cross has just relaxed the criteria for
the grant, now allowing the grant to be paid
retrospectively back until 4 September 2010.
Recover Canterbury Spokesperson Pip Tschudin
says this is an incredibly positive change for
Canterbury businesses.
“A large number of businesses had to seek
professional, independent advice immediately
following the quakes but as the Independent
Advice for Small Business grant was not
launched until January 2012 and was not
retrospective these businesses were unable to
access this source of funding.
“The inclusion of retrospective applications by
the Red Cross means hundreds more
businesses will now be able to get the financial
hand up that the grant provides. We really do
encourage businesses that believe they may
now be eligible for this grant to contact the
Recover Canterbury team,” says Pip Tschudin.
Canterbury Tales is the official newsletter of
the Canterbury-Westland Branch New
Zealand Law Society.
Publications Committee: Karen Feltham
(editor), Brendan Callaghan, Aliza Eveleigh,
Summer Pringle, Zylpha Kovacs and Kate
Dougherty.
All correspondence and photographs should
be forwarded to: The Branch Manager,
Canterbury-Westland Branch New Zealand
Law Society, Unit 1, 8 Homersham Place,
Russley, Christchurch. P. O. Box 565
Christchurch.
Phone 358-3147, fax 358-3148. email
canterbury-westland@lawsociety.org.nz.
Canterbury Tales is published 11 times per
year. The deadline for editorial and
photographs is the 8th of the month.
Disclaimer: Canterbury Tales is published by
the Canterbury Westland Branch New
Zealand Law Society. The opinions expressed
herein may not necessarily be those of the
Branch and have not been expressly
authorised. The Branch accepts no
responsibility whatsoever for any error,
omission or statement.
The Independent Advice for Small Business
grant is available to any business with fewer
than ten employees and a genuine need for
financial assistance in order to access
professional advice about the effect of
earthquakes on their business.
To date more than 250 businesses have
received the Independent Advice for Small
Business grant.
Applications for the Independent Advice for
Small Business grant are available through
Recover Canterbury. Any business that wants
to apply for the grant can contact Recover
Canterbury on 0800 505 096 or at
www.recovercanterbury.co.nz.
For more information please contact Pip
Tschudin Recover Canterbury, Communications
Manager Ph: 021 848 381.
24
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Case summaries (57)
Right to Life New Zealand Inc
v The Abortion Supervisory
Committee — [2012] NZSC 68
— 9 August 2012 — Elias CJ,
Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath
and William Young JJ
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW —
HEALTH PRACTITIONERS
Largely unsuccessful appeal in relation to
exercise by Abortion Supervisory Committee
of its functions and powers under the
Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act
1977 (the Act) - present appeal by appellant
society challenged CA decision overturning HC
finding that respondent was misinterpreting
its functions and powers under the Act application for judicial review had asserted
misinterpretation by the respondent of its
powers, in particular by expressed belief in
annual reports to Parliament that the Act gave
respondent “no control or authority or
oversight in respect of the individual decisions
of [certifying] consultants” - particular grounds
of challenge included alleged failure to inquire
into circumstances in which consultants were
authorising the performance of abortions on
mental health ground having regard to number
of abortions approved under that ground and
alleged failure to seek proper information on
mental health grounds from certifying
consultants - HC concluded respondent was
able to review or scrutinise individual decisions
using its powers under s36 to require
consultants to keep records and report on
cases they had considered for purpose of
performing statutory functions, in particular to
ensure compliance with the law and
consistency in practice - HCJ expressed
opinion there was reason to doubt the
lawfulness of many abortions authorised by
consultants based on statements in annual
reports that the law was being used more
liberally than Parliament intended and high
abortion approval rate bearing in mind
threshold for decision under s187A Crimes
Act 1961 - HCJ made it clear however he
reached no final conclusion concerning
compliance by certifying consultants with the
law and declined to grant mandatory relief or
declaration - respondent’s appeal was allowed
by majority of CA on grounds that respondent
did not have power of review or scrutiny in
individual cases and that it was not open to
respondent to form its own opinion about the
lawfulness, including clinical correctness, of
particular decisions (power of review in
s14(1)(a) operated at general level,
respondent was not authorised to intervene
in individual decisions absent bad faith,
respondent could gather information for
analysis and audit provided it did not review
the clinical or medical judgment of medical
practitioners in individual cases and
respondent had taken seriously obligation to
report to Parliament giving its honest opinion
as to state of the law) - majority of CA
considered factual findings and observations
by HCJ were inappropriate and any “findings”
as to lawfulness of decision making ought not
to have been made and were of no lawful
effect - appellant’s case in the HC and CA was
conducted on basis of claimed recognition by
the Act of express right to life on part of unborn
child, that common law “born alive” rule had
been modified by the Act to provide protection
to foetus in relation to abortion and that
unborn child had right guaranteed by s8 New
Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 not to be
deprived of life - those broad arguments were
rejected by HC and CA and leave to appeal
declined on those grounds - appeal argued
on basis that respondent could and should
have made investigation of consultants’
practices in individual cases based in particular,
on s14(1)(a), S14(1)(i) and s14(1)(k) and
s36 of the Act read in the light of s30(5),
S30(6) and s30(7) - examination of
recommendations of the Royal Commission
of Inquiry on Contraception, Sterilisation, and
Abortion in New Zealand (1977) and
legislative framework - scope of function and
powers of respondent under s14 and s36 meaning of “unlawfully” in s183 and s186 of
the Crimes Act in terms of definition in s187A
- discussion of Wall v Livingston which was
interpreted by majority as supporting view that
even after the event respondent could not
make inquiry or investigation into decision
making in individual case where that would
tend to question decision made and limited
by minority to pretermination challenges of
individual decisions - majority in SC derived
support for its view from confidentiality
provisions of the Act and absence of full range
of powers required to investigate propriety of
consultant’s assessment in individual case,
perceived distinction in s36 between keeping
of medical records in individual case and
submitting of reports in relation to cases as
group (caseload) and absence of power to
call for submission of case records even in
anonymised form - in their dissent, minority
emphasised that important purpose of
respondent’s oversight role envisaged by Royal
Commission was “to ensure the uniform,
impartial and efficient working of the abortion
laws” and considered that individual scrutiny
New Zealand’s legal research tool
was envisaged under s14 and s36 and might
be required on occasion to ensure that the
law was being applied consistently, effectively
and in accordance with the policy of the
legislation
HELD: (per Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping
JJ) respondent was empowered to ask
consultant how he or she was approaching
decision making in general over the whole of
their workload under the Act but it could not
ask questions about how they came to
diagnosis or conclusion in particular case - this
would be to engage in process of attempting
to review the clinical judgment of the
consultant in an individual case which was not
contemplated by Act - individual decisions
were matter of medical judgment and
expertise in individual case and not to be
questioned whether before or after
termination - respondent had power and
responsibility to make generalised enquiries
from time to time concerning, for example,
use of particular diagnostic criteria or
techniques across run of caseload but not on
basis of individual cases - view expressed that
respondent had not fully appreciated the
breadth of function and powers to conduct
such generalised inquiries - HCJ went too far
in appearing to question the lawfulness of
abortions authorised by certifying consultants
(abortion not unlawful under s187A once
necessary certificate given by two consultants
unless operating surgeon at the time did not
believe it to be lawful in terms of s187A) but
open to Judge to give further opinions about
the conduct of the respondent or operations
of the Act based on material before him principal ground of appeal (that investigation
should have been made of practices in
individual cases) failed - appeal dismissed costs to lie where they fell (each party had
had some success)
DISSENTING: (per McGrath and William
Young JJ dissenting) true scope of
respondent’s functions and powers was wider
than majority judgment recognised - when
reasonably necessary in the view of the
respondent, investigation into individual cases
(including by seeking retrospective information
from certifying consultants about diagnoses)
was contemplated and permitted under the
Act in addition to generalised inquiries into
the operation of the abortion law - “after-thefact” review was in different category from preoperation review examined in Wall v Livingston
- respondent was statutorily entrusted with the
supervision of the provisions of abortion law
particularly decision making under s32 and
s33 and its role should not be read down open to HCJ to make observations on manner
in which respondent was performing its
functions based on material before him.
Canterbury tales
Book Review
Defending Jacob
by William Landay
If you’re looking for a good book to tie you
over for the remainder of the winter evenings
then look no further than the latest novel by
William Landay, Defending Jacob.
5
By Sarina Barron
Part legal thriller, part contemporary drama this
book is sure to keep your interest piqued and
your mind battling out the “did he...didn’t he?”
scenario.
The story is focused on Andy, an assistant US
District Attorney. The murder of a local youth
stuns the suburban community in which he,
his wife Lori and his son Jacob live.
Help wanted with
doctoral thesis
My name is Katrina Winsor and I am a PhD Candidate in Law at Victoria University of
Wellington. I am completing my doctoral thesis on the United Nations Convention on
Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the “CISG”). Part of my doctoral thesis
involves undertaking a survey of lawyers and arbitrators in New Zealand about the CISG.
A variation of the survey is also being conducted internationally (with the help of the New
York Bar Association and other CISG enthusiasts around the world — International CISG
Survey).
I would appreciate it if you would consider completing the survey for me (NZ CISG
Survey). It should take 10-15 minutes to complete. Even if you have never heard of the
CISG your answers will be of help, and it would almost certainly take you even less time
to answer.
This is because second part of the survey addresses whether you were taught about the
CISG at law school and your knowledge personally of it, and it will therefore be useful to
have any responses at all.
I strongly believe that the results I produce will be of benefit to New Zealand lawyers and
our legal community in the future. On the conclusion of the survey I am also willing to
provide a summary of the results, should you wish to see tick this option in the survey.
Any responses will be much appreciated and will only help to provide a stronger basis for
the practical usage of the CISG in New Zealand. The survey responses will be put into a
written report on an aggregated basis, so it won’t be possible for you or your firm to be
identified personally.
The link to the survey is available at NZ CISG Survey. As mentioned, it should take you no
more than about 10 minutes. Please also feel free to contact me at
katrina.winsor@vuw.ac.nz or 021 1483134.
Andy’s job requires him to investigate the
teenage boy’s gruesome death. Much to Andy’s
dismay evidence soon mounts up implicating
his son Jacob in the murder. Andy is forced to
step aside in his role as investigator and Jacob
is soon charged with the murder of his
classmate.
Despite Jacob’s professed innocence, more and
more evidence turns up implicating him. This
does not bode well for Jacob’s trial, and Andy
and Lori are thrown into every parent’s worst
nightmare.
The relationships that bind the family together
are sorely tested. The course of the book is
witness to a family’s heartbreak and their
potential destruction. Andy’s belief in his son’s
innocence is unwavering and blind, whereas
Lori can understand Jacob’s faults and is looking
for the truth. This difference causes cracks in a
previously happy marriage.
Perhaps one of the reasons why this book has
been so successful is that it puts you in the
“what would you believe if this was your child”
position.
This book is not without its faults. It has a slightly
confusing beginning and sluggish middle but I
urge the reader to persevere with it until the
end where you are rewarded with a thrilling
climax. Even more satisfying than this is the
fact that Defending Jacob is a story that stays
with you long after finishing the last page.
Court Jester
“Anyone with needs to be prayed over, come
forward, to the front at the altar,” the preacher
says.
Leroy gets in line, and when it is his turn, the
preacher asks, “Leroy, what do you want me to
pray about for you.”
Leroy replies, “Preacher, I need you to pray for
my hearing.” The preacher puts one finger in
Leroy’s ear, and he places the other hand on
top of Leroy’s head and prays and prays and
prays, and prays for Leroy.
After a few minutes, the preacher removes his
hands, stands back and asks,”Leroy, how is your
hearing now?”
Leroy says, “I don’t know, Reverend, it ain’t til
next Wednesday!”
Court Jester is a new item in Canterbury
Tales, primarily offering comfort to those
who lament the absence of Allister Davis’s
monthly joke. Feel free to send a suitable
joke to the branch office for inclusion.
Court Jester is a new item in Canterbury
Tales, primarily offering comfort to those
who lament the absence of Allister Davis’s
monthly joke. Feel free to send a suitable
joke to the branch office for inclusion.
26
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Reform of the Family Court
The Minister of Justice Judith
Collins has announced a number
of proposals for the reform of the
Family Court. These proposals are
a consequence of the Family
Court Review, commenced last
year.
Many of the proposals for reform were made
by the Family Law Section and the Reference
Group, established by the Minister of which
Garry Collin and Antony Mahon were
members.
Although some of the
submissions have been adopted, there are
areas of concern.
Proposed new tracks
The diagram of the proposed new tracks
illustrates the establishment of a clear track
system supported by the Section and the
Reference Group.
The detail of the proposed tracks was not
seen by either the Section or the Reference
Group and had not been released until the
Minister’s announcement.There has been no
consultation in respect of the track detail.
Of particular importance is:
*
The without notice track remains largely
unchanged.
* The simple track deals with matters with a
simple or single issue, e.g. contact
arrangements for children. When an
application is filed, a Judge will triage the
application onto either the simple track or
the standard track. If triage occurs onto the
simple track, legal aid is not available, a Lawyer
for Child is unlikely to be appointed and
lawyers will be unable to appear in the Court.
* The standard track deals with multiple or
more serious issues. Legal aid is available
only for hearing, a Lawyer for Child may be
appointed after a defence is filed if there are
serious issues, and lawyers may only appear
for parties after a settlement hearing, i.e. at
the substantive hearing.
Observation
Garry Collin has a concern that the proposed
amendments diminish the value of the Family
Court, which has been recognised
internationally as a world leader. He has no
doubt that the exclusion of the lawyers from
the Family Court is motivated largely by
money.
To exclude lawyers from the simple and
standard track until hearing, removes the
obligation to provide legal aid for state funded
parties up until hearing on the standard track.
Garry does not believe that any of the
submissions to the Family Court Review
supported the removal of lawyers from the
Court process.
No consultation has occurred and the
government gave no notice that it intended
to remove lawyers from the process. The
proposals mandate self-litigation. Our Courts
have sufficient experience to know that cases
involving self-litigants:
* take longer;
* cause more damage to the parties;
* impact on a greater way on children; and
* are often the most expensive cases in terms
of Registry and Judicial resources and Lawyer
for Child expenses.
The Family Law Section will be keeping its
members fully advised on these important
issues and Canterbury Tales would like to
hear your views.Please contact us on email
zylpha.kovacs@lawsociety.org.nz.
We are also looking at obligations and issues
surrounding self-litigation and will bring these
to you in the near future.
AMINZ enters quake arena
The Arbitrators’ and Mediators’
Institute of New Zealand (AMINZ)
has launched an independent
nationwide mediation service for
Earthquake Commission (EQC)
customers.
Under the new arrangement, AMINZ will
independently administer the EQC Mediation
Service. Selected customers who have failed
to reach a satisfactory outcome within the
existing EQC complaints service may now have
the choice of using leading mediators to help
resolve complaints.
The Commission will be responsible for offering
customers mediation. Once customers accept
the mediation offer, they will be directed to
AMINZ, the country’s leading professional
agency for dispute resolution.
The choice of mediator is to be made
independently of EQC, with customers being
able to select their preferred mediator. EQC,
along with the customer, would be bound by
the outcome of a settlement reached at
mediation. The service is free to EQC
customers, but does not cover any additional
legal costs or fees for experts.
AMINZ Executive Director Deborah Hart said
the initiative would deliver concrete results, in
particular to those affected by recent
earthquakes in the Canterbury region, both by
eliminating the need for legal proceedings or
involvement of the Ombudsman and making
available some of the country’s top mediators.
“The benefits for New Zealanders rebuilding
their lives and businesses in the wake of a
disaster can hardly be overstated,” she said.
“Our Institute is a byword for independent
resolution, professional standards and prompt
service-all the things people in these situations
need.”
For more information, please go to
www.eqcmediation.org.nz. HelpDesk 0800 to
mediate 10.30am-4.30pm Monday to Friday.
Canterbury tales
Fellows in Arbitration
Congratulations to Nicholas
Davidson QC, Tony HughesJohnson QC and Malcolm Wallace
who were awarded their Fellowship
certificates at the Arbitrators and
Mediators Institute of New Zealand
(AMINZ) annual dinner held in
Wellington on 3rd August.
Fellowship is attained by passing the AMINZ
Fellowship programme, which consists of
interviews, a pre-Fellowship one-day seminar,
two days of testing and approval by the AMINZ
Council. The testing is rigorous and consists of
two written three-hour examinations and
practical assessments.
Malcolm Wallace accepting his Fellowship
certificate from David Patten.
Fellowship of the Arbitrators and Mediators
Institute of New Zealand (AMINZ) is the highest
credential AMINZ has available. It is recognised
internationally and Fellows in Arbitration are
provided reciprocal rights of Fellowship to the
Chartered Institute.
Further congratulations go to Nicholas Davidson
QC who was also awarded the Sir Ronald
Davison Award for excellence in award writing.
The Sir Ronald Davison Award is made in
association with Thomson Reuters, for award
writing associated with the examination for
Fellowship of the AMINZ.
The Sir Ronald Davison Award was instituted
in 1988. It is not an award made annually but
only presented when there is a Fellowship
candidate who has attained a standard of
excellence in the award writing examination.
In most years it is not awarded.
All regarded the process as very testing through
all its component parts. Nickolas and others
saw it not just as an examination but a sound
learning experience regarding the sometimes
substantial differences between arbitration and
conventional Court litigation.
Above, Tony Hughes-Johnson QC with
AMINZ vice-president, David Patten.
Below, Nickolas Davidson QC accepting
the Sir Ronald Davison Award from Ian
MacIntosh, Thomson Reuters. (Thomson
Reuters sponsors the award).
7
28
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Doing one thing at a time
By Tony Schwartz
Why is it that between 25% and
50% of people report feeling
overwhelmed or burned out at
work?
It’s not just the number of hours we’re working,
but also the fact that we spend too many
continuous hours juggling too many things at
the same time.
What we’ve lost, above all, is stopping points,
finish lines and boundaries. Technology has
blurred them beyond recognition. Wherever we
go, our work follows us, on our digital devices,
ever insistent and intrusive. It’s like an itch we
can’t resist scratching, even though scratching
invariably makes it worse.
Tell the truth: Do you answer email during
conference calls (and sometimes even during
calls with one other person)? Do you bring your
laptop to meetings and then pretend you’re
taking notes while you surf the net? Do you
eat lunch at your desk? Do you make calls while
you’re driving, and even send the occasional
text, even though you know you shouldn’t?
The biggest cost — assuming you don’t crash
— is to your productivity. In part, that’s a simple
consequence of splitting your attention, so that
you’re partially engaged in multiple activities
but rarely fully engaged in any one. In part, it’s
because when you switch away from a primary
task to do something else, you’re increasing
the time it takes to finish that task by an average
of 25 per cent.
But most insidiously, it’s because if you’re
always doing something, you’re relentlessly
burning down your available reservoir of energy
over the course of every day, so you have less
available with every passing hour.
I know this from my own experience. I get two
to three times as much writing accomplished
when I focus without interruption for a
designated period of time and then take a real
break, away from my desk. The best way for
an organisation to fuel higher productivity and
more innovative thinking is to strongly
encourage finite periods of absorbed focus, as
well as shorter periods of real renewal.
If you’re a manager, here are three policies
worth promoting:
1. Maintain meeting discipline. Schedule
meetings for 45 minutes, rather than an hour
or longer, so participants can stay focused, take
time afterward to reflect on what’s been
discussed, and recover before the next
obligation. Start all meetings at a precise time,
end at a precise time, and insist that all digital
devices be turned off throughout the meeting.
2. Stop demanding or expecting instant
responsiveness at every moment of the day. It
forces your people into reactive mode, fractures
their attention, and makes it difficult for them
to sustain attention on their priorities. Let them
turn off their email at certain times. If it’s urgent,
you can call them - but that won’t happen very
often.
3. Encourage renewal. Create at least one time
during the day when you encourage your
people to stop working and take a break. Offer
a midafternoon class in yoga, or meditation,
organise a group walk or workout, or consider
creating a renewal room where people can
relax, or take a nap.
It’s also up to individuals to set their own
boundaries. Consider these three behaviors for
yourself:
1. Do the most important thing first in the
morning, preferably without interruption, for 60
to 90 minutes, with a clear start and stop time.
If possible, work in a private space during this
period, or with sound-reducing earphones.
Finally, resist every impulse to distraction,
knowing that you have a designated stopping
point. The more absorbed you can get, the
more productive you’ll be. When you’re done,
take at least a few minutes to renew.
2. Establish regular, scheduled times to think
more long term, creatively, or strategically. If
you don’t, you’ll constantly succumb to the
tyranny of the urgent. Also, find a different
environment in which to do this activity —
preferably one that’s relaxed and conducive to
open-ended thinking.
3. Take real and regular holidays. Real means
that when you’re off, you’re truly disconnecting
from work. Regular means several times a year
if possible, even if some are only two or three
days added to a weekend. The research strongly
suggests that you’ll be far healthier if you take
all of your holiday time, and more productive
overall.
A single principle lies at the heart of all these
suggestions. When you’re engaged at work, fully
engage, for defined periods of time. When
you’re renewing, truly renew. Make waves. Stop
living your life in the gray zone.
Tony Schwartz is the president and CEO of
The Energy Project and the author of Be
Excellent at Anything.
Canterbury tales
Library News
By Julia de Friez
Librarian
UK legal database Lawtel is an
important new addition to the
Library’s electronic collection.
Updated daily, Lawtel includes more than
60,000 case reports across a wide range of
subject areas, covering all the key UK courts
from 1980; unreported transcripts; UK Acts
back to 1987 and Statutory Instruments from
1997; abstracts of journal articles from major
legal publications 1980 onwards (some in full
text).
You can search Lawtel using the Library’s
computers at Homersham Place, or request a
search to be done for you by emailing
canterbury@nzlslibrary.org.nz or via our online
research request form at http://
www.lawsociety.org.nz/home/for_lawyers/
law_library/services/research_request
Wills & Trusts Law Reports (WTLR)
Another addition to the Library’s electronic
collection is Wills and Trusts Law Reports
(2000-2004) also available on Library
computers. (The Law Society Library in
Auckland holds the hard copy WTLRs from
2005).
Wills & Trusts Law Reports are published ten
times a year and are the only set of UK law
reports to specialise in trusts and probate case
law. The Reports provide case-notes and
editors’ comments, review important UK
judgments and include key judgments from
other common law jurisdictions, including New
Zealand.
Missing text
Shanahan’s Australian law of trademarks
and passing off by Mark Davison et al., 3rd
ed (2003) is missing from the Library collection
in the Courts building. If you borrowed this text
from the Library (before 22 February 2011)
please contact Julia on 377-1852.
Would you like
to have a say?
The Publications Committee is urgently
looking for people to contribute articles to
Canterbury Tales.
If you have an interest in a specific area of
law, want to grumble to the editor, have a
photo of interest (past or present) then send
them to us or make enquiries at the
Canterbury-Westland Branch New Zealand
Law Society, Unit 1, 8 Homersham Street,
Burnside. PO Box 565 Christchurch.
Phone 358-3147, fax 358-3148 or email
canterbury-westland@lawsociety.org.nz.
9
Homersham Place
Library staff are still working from our temporary
location, Unit 1, 8 Homersham Place, Burnside.
A collection of core current material is available
for practitioners’ use at Homersham Place. You
can check the Library’s online catalogue to see
where a particular item is held (http://
www.lawsocietylibrary.org.nz/catalogue/).
If what you need is still held in Durham Street,
it can usually be retrieved if requested with a
few days notice. Two laptops are available at
Homersham Place for practitioners to access
the Library’s electronic collection.
Contact the Library
For further information about our collection or
research or document delivery requests, contact
us by email canterbury@nzlslibrary.org.nz, or
phone on 377-1852.
Comings
& Goings
Joined Firm
Gregory Ambler (Duncan Cotterill, from Aspinall
Joel, Dunedin), Michael Bendall, (Lane Neave),
John Boyd (Duncan Cotterill), Shaun Brookes
(Buddle Findlay), Ann Maria Buckley (Cavell
Leitch Pringle & Boyle), Hannah Carey (Cavell
Leitch Pringle & Boyle), Theon Chalklen
(Anderson Lloyd), Benjamin Collins (Duncan
Cotterill), Evelyn Deans (LINZ), Benjamin Lloyd
(Duncan Cotterill), Fiona Mackenzie (Goodman
Tavendale Reid), Katrina Palmer (Saunders &
Co), Lara Prince (Community Law Canterbury),
Thomas Rattray (White Fox & Jones), Richard
Reeve (Stevens Orchard Lawyers Ltd,
Westport), Nicholas Robertson (Harmans),
Jade Rutherford (Anderson Lloyd), Tristan Sage
(Duncan Cotterill), David van Hout (Anderson
Lloyd), Ross Keenan (Wynn Williams Lawyers).
Changed firm
Stephanie Brown (Anthony Harper to Anderson
Lloyd), Kim Cotton (Gresson Dorman & Co to
Pier Law), Jack Mei Ling (Papprills to Goodman
Tavendale Reid), Blair Williams (AMI Insurance
Ltd to IAG New Zealand Ltd), Michael Singleton
(Goodman Tavendale Reid to Christchurch
International Airport).
Change of status
Gillian Ferguson, retired as barrister.
New barrister/firm
Philip Cheyne, Barrister, 230 Grimseys Road,
Redwood, Christchurch 8051, phone 021 026
82098, email pcheyne@xtra.co.nz.
Helen Doyle, Barrister, 149 Matsons Avenue,
Papanui, Christchurch 8053, phone (03) 3543085.
Jason Wren, Barrister (previously with Duncan
Cotterill), P. O. Box 7175, Sydenham,
Christchurch 8240, phone (03) 377-9644,
(03) 377-9645, email jason@jasonwren.co.nz.
Change of details
Geddes & Maciaszek, P. O.Box 42059,
Christchurch 8149.
2
10
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Canterbury-Westland
Branch/NZLS
Education
Programme
Family Law function
has “in house” caterer
Proudly sponsored by
NZLS Continuing Legal
Education
To register and for other information
check the CLE website,
www.lawayerseducation.co.nz
Christchurch
SEPTEMBER
27 — Webinar — Consultation Requirements.
OCTOBER
2 — Statutory Interpretation.
17 — Webinar — Youth Justice practice
issues. An update.
18 — Care and Protection Orders and CYFS.
NOVEMBER
6 — Evidence Act for Civil Litigators.
13 — Practical Enforcement of Judgments.
19-20 — Introduction to High Court Civil
Litigation Skills 2012.
20 — Trusts for Property Lawyers.
28-29 — Reading accounts and balance
sheets.
Out of Christchurch
Tax Conference — Auckland 5th September.
Writing persuasive opinions — Wellington
26th September, Auckland 28th September.
Australia and New Zealand Education Law
Association Conference, 3-5 October,
Rotorua.
Logic for Lawyers — Wellington 23 October,
Auckland 25th October.
Christchurch-Westland Branch NZLS
Seminars
SEPTEMBER
12 — Family Law Practitioners — Without
Notice Applications — Back to Basics and
judicial Expectations, Armagh 1 Family Court.
Presenters: Her Honour Judge J Moran and
Chris Fogarty.
25 — Family Law Practitioners — CYPF Act
Representing Parents, Armagh 1 Family
Court. Presenter: Frances Taylor Boyd.
OCTOBER
25 — Junior Practitioners Mock Trial.
Domestic Violence, Westpac Hub Training
Room.
Social
NOVEMBER
7 — Quiz Evening. Watch for flyer.
The Family Law Committee held a cocktail function on 19th July at the Elmwood
Bowling Club. An enjoyable evening was had by all that attended and the catering, which
was supplied by our very own Diana Shirtcliff’s catering company, Spicewitch, was
superb. Pictured above enjoying the evening are, left, Carol Morgan and Anya Gartner
and, right, Andy Ogilvie, Bob Perry and Ferne Bradley.
Laughter unites staff
Continued from Page 1
Allister wants to show us how well behaved
they are! No really, they sit, shake hands and I
must say they are generally better behaved than
he is when he comes to visit the office!
Amongst the serious complaints and Law
Society business being able to “have a laugh”
is essential.
There have been many laughs that have been
retold to me, like the time that Sandy made
the coffee and tea in the one pot for a
committee meeting and when questioned by
one of the members why there were teabags
floating in the coffee pot was quick to reply
that there was only one pot and she had to
think outside the square!
Then there was the time that Valerie in her first
week of work went home to her husband and
said that she did not think she would stay at
that job for very long but is still here 23 years
later and just to clarify, Malcolm was not even
working there then so he cannot be blamed
for her first impressions.
We all agree that Malcolm is a good man and
as the saying goes “behind every good man
there will be a good woman”, in Malcolm’s Law
Society life he has three women, which will
explain why he is such a good man!
Susan is his right-hand girl and often knows
what Malcolm is going to ask before he opens
his mouth, which is maybe why Malcolm
nicknames her Radar.
Valerie and Sandy must be his left-hand girls
and in their positions as Legal Standards
Officers they are able to work for their
committees and support him as manager of
our office and in his national role in the
complaints area.
I suppose that I will also become one of the
good women behind Malcolm in time but at
this stage I am told that I am “on probation”.
I was at first not sure of this probation position
but the girls soon informed me that Malcolm
has been known to tell them that they are still
on probation after 23 years so it must be a
good thing and even though I will be using a
zimmer frame and hearing aid I may still be
found here on probation in 23 years!
Notwithstanding that we do have some laughs
in our office we do also work hard and we are
here to help you whenever you require it so
please contact us on phone 366-9184 or call
in to see us at Unit 1, 8 Homersham Place,
Burnside.
The team in the library on the ground floor are
also there to assist you so please call them on
377-1852. Our future at 307 Durham Street
is at this stage unknown as is the library building
and as soon as we hear anything further we
will let you know.
Canterbury tales
Practice Notices
To Lease
Office space
New modern building with ground
floor office space for lease on Shirley
Road available early next year.
Floor space is approximately 610m2
with option to divide into two separate tenancies.
Approximately 26 car parking spaces
available from 6am to 6pm each day.
Contact Simon Graham 022 091 5829.
It costs approximately $8000 per
day to run the City Mission’s
services. A bequest arranged today
could really help secure their future.
If you have a client who may be
interested in providing assistance
please make email contact via
info@citymission.org.nz, or visit the
website
www.chchcitymission.org.nz.
11
2
12
Canterbury
Canterburytales
tales
Nuturing young legal talent
The importance of nurturing and
growing young talent is a key
component of the graduate
programme run by national and
trans-Tasman lawyers Duncan
Cotterill.
Eight graduates have joined the large law firm
this year, spread among its four New Zealand
offices; in Christchurch (Jessica Orsman, Ben
Collins, Tristan Sage); Nelson (Michelle
Byczkow); Wellington (Jessie Stone, Oliver
Lee); and Auckland (Ellen Zhang, Anya Park).
Duncan Cotterill’s HR manager, Kirsten Wood,
said the transition from university to workplace
was a big and one that required a lot of effort
from both parties.
“We recognise it’s important to provide a good
grounding in terms of expectations, behaviour,
how to interact with partners and clients, practical
skills for working in an office, legal fundamentals
such as drafting, research tools, etc.
“Mid-way through the year we hold a refresher
session, similar to the first induction, although
by then the graduates will be more familiar
with their roles, the teams and the firm. We
discuss issues and challenges that have arisen
and work on developing their skills as junior
solicitors.”
This year’s intake of graduates from across the
firm’s four New Zealand offices spent a hectic
few days in Christchurch completing the first
stage of their graduate programme. They met
with partners, learnt more about Duncan
Cotterill and got to grips with law in the
workplace.
National graduate recruitment partner Jonathan
Scragg said that like all staff, graduates needed
encouragement and feedback.
“Each graduate has a partner in the firm
responsible for their progression. The partners
invest in the graduates’ learning and
development by ensuring the graduates are
challenged while learning at an appropriate
pace.”
Graduates do two six month rotations during
their first year so they are exposed to different
areas of law and get a better idea of the area
in which they may like to specialise.
Duncan Cotterill’s 2012 graduates are ready for the ride. Pictured (left to right): Back row,
Michelle Byczkow, Anya Park and Jessie Stone. Front row, Oliver Lee, Ellen Zhang, Ben
Collins, Tristan Sage and Jess Orsman.
Duncan Cotterill also links the graduates with
a ‘buddy’ so that they have a dedicated source
of reference to bounce ideas off, and “someone
who can handle those silly but essential
questions you often want to ask when you’re
new in a role.”
The close office quarters staff in Christchurch
firms now share has been a surprising bonus
for the graduates in that city.
Tristan Sage: “It’s a quirk of our current working
environment that sharing a small office with
two Senior Solicitors has actually been
extremely beneficial to me. Whenever I have a
question I can just turn around and ask them.
In contrast, when I was summer clerking in
Wellington, I had an office to myself but I found
it very daunting to walk into the offices of other
lawyers to ask questions.”
Wellingtonian Jess Orsman did not imagine she
would end up working in Christchurch, a year
after the February 2011 earthquake. But when
the young lawyer started applying for graduate
positions she knew she wanted a change from
her hometown and decided to look at other
cities.
“I certainly didn’t think I would move to
Christchurch this time last year,” said 25-yearold Jess, who is part of Duncan Cotterill’s
Environmental Law team.
“But when I started applying for jobs I was open
minded about moving somewhere new for
work and the grad position in the Environment
Law team in Christchurch sounded really great.
There couldn’t be a better place and time to
be working in this area. The process of the new
Central City Plan post-earthquake is quite a
unique scenario to encounter.”
Christchurch’s ‘activity’ is of more than a passing
interest to Jess who also has an MSc in Geology.
Ben Collins, 24, who is currently working in
the litigation team, also had Christchurch as
his first choice.
“I have the majority of my family and friends
here. I think that although it’s been a terrible
time for the city, the last 18 or so months will
open as many doors as they will close. The city
is still very much lived in and though it is
different, the situation is what you make it,”
said Ben, who also has a B.A. in Political Science.
Recruiting is already well under way for 2013.
Jonathan Scragg said the applications for 2013
graduate positions were of a “very high
standard, just as for the 2012 graduates”.
The firm expects to employ at least nine
graduates across the New Zealand offices in
2013.