Regulation of Employment Advocates

The Independent Report

There is no case for regulation of employment advocates. Submissions of the Employment Law Institute of New Zealand ELINZ and many other "experts" that submitted on this did not make out a case for regulation of employment advocates. Our submissions prevailed.

"As to ELINZ lack of success in its 2022 push for regulation of employment advocates, I note that the Auckland District Law Society ADLS wanted advocates banned from the Employment Court which I publicly opposed and gave comprehensive rationale for this at the time. The final independent review report of March 2023 "Regulating Lawyers in Aotearoa New Zealand" that I submitted on has covered why regulation of the industry is not necessary, and lighter-touch methods are preferred rather than extending the scope of regulation to advocates." Lawrence Anderson

Submissions by Lawrence Anderson on Employment Advocate Regulation

Download File: Submissions by Lawrence Anderson RE: The Regulation of Lawyers and Legal Services in Aotearoa New Zealand

The Report: Regulating Lawyers in Aoteoroa New Zealand

Insufficient evidence of harm to bring non-lawyers within the scope of regulation

Our consultation did not identify any examples of widespread consumer harm arising from unregulated legal service providers that might justify the costs of bringing non-lawyers within the same regulatory framework as lawyers. The one topic that generated the most concern was employment advocates. We are satisfied that, should government consider options for regulating these or other professions, there are likely to be more suitable (and lighter-touch) methods for doing so than extending the scope of regulation currently applied to lawyers.

We are also satisfied there are no strong policy reasons for revisiting the current scope of areas of legal work that are reserved solely for lawyers. The reserved work is minimal and is targeted at a specific area (litigation-related activity) where there is a clear public interest in maintaining high standards of competence in order to uphold the administration of justice and efficient operation of the courts. By reserving only a small area of work for lawyers, the Act strikes an appropriate balance by allowing other providers of legal services to compete with lawyers in non-reserved areas.

We are also conscious that one of the many reasons people choose alternative providers of legal services is because they are more affordable. Many consumers will happily prioritise these financial benefits over the higher levels of protection available when consulting a lawyer. Lawyers face regulatory costs and responsibilities that non-lawyers do not, such as the need to adhere to the Conduct and Client Care Rules. However, receiving a practising certificate also confers significant commercial benefits that are not available to non-lawyers, including from clients seeking the protection that accompanies legal professional privilege, the commercial advantages and status of being able to use ‘exclusive’ professional titles, and the ability to provide services within reserved areas.

In light of these benefits and the lack of demonstrable harm from the current arrangements, there is no compelling case for revisiting the current scope of regulation for lawyers.

Download File: Regulation of Lawyers Final Report, in other words: Employment Advocates will not be regulated

Our observation of The Employment Law Institute of New Zealand ELINZ

The Employment Law Institute of New Zealand ELINZ is not suited to properly and impartially deal with employment advocate regulation. It is an incorporated society only and it has been our observation that its members do not follow its own rules. ELINZ is run by people that have a major financial interest in the industry. They are not independent and have demonstrated that they are unable to regulate themselves, for example:

1. Not treating complaints made to ELINZ with confidentiality.
2. Gossiping to us about complaints made about other ELINZ members.
3. Demanding third parties to provide information to use against our clients.
4. Pressuring advocates to flip against their employee clients.
5. Refusing to provide client files where a client changes representation; ELINZ complaint committee refusing to take steps to ensure that its members provide client files on request.
6. Not providing their clients with written terms of engagement contracts. That is a breach of the ELINZ ethical standards in not disclosing and having agreement on fees.
7. Receiving employee compensation personally, taking their fees out of it and passing on the remainder without using a solicitor trust account, this is in breach of section 150A of the Act.