Public Annotation (for followers of this request)

There is a gap in the law which facilitates and condones self-represented lawyers to commit crime in the civil jurisdiction

FYI Request #32951 — Status as at November 2025

This OIA raises system-level questions about legal accountability in New Zealand—specifically whether gaps exist that allow lawyers acting for themselves (self-represented lawyers) to avoid scrutiny, commit alleged misconduct, or rely on institutional protections that ordinary litigants do not have.

The requester seeks Ministry of Justice policies, legal justifications, and discussion papers relating to five major areas of concern:
1. NZ Law Society’s ability to decline complaints because a matter is “before the courts”, leaving no equivalent of an independent body like the IPCA for lawyers.
2. How alleged criminal conduct in civil proceedings (e.g., perjury, document concealment, false declarations) is supposed to be addressed when Police, NZLS, and judges all refuse to intervene.
3. How the Conduct & Client Care Rules apply to lawyers when they appear for themselves, given most rules assume a lawyer–client relationship.
4. How “public interest” is assessed by the courts and law-enforcement bodies in deciding whether to investigate or advance a matter.
5. What an ordinary New Zealander can realistically do when facing a self-represented lawyer who uses their status, procedural knowledge, or professional networks to their advantage.

The Ministry of Justice acknowledged the request on 21 November 2025, with a due date of 19 December 2025. No substantive information has yet been released.

⸻

1. Broader Context: A Known Pattern Across FYI OIA Requests

A review of dozens of related OIAs on FYI.org.nz shows that these concerns are recurring national issues, not isolated complaints. Multiple requesters have raised:
• Lack of external oversight of NZLS
• Inability to get Police to act on perjury or fraud committed in civil courts
• Courts refusing to engage with allegations of misconduct by litigants who are also lawyers
• Delays, non-listing, and judicial reluctance to police lawyer behaviour
• NZLS, LCRO, and MoJ referring complainants in circles with no resolution

There is a clear systemic theme:
When a lawyer is acting as a litigant, no single agency accepts responsibility for regulating their behaviour, creating an accountability vacuum.

⸻

2. Related OIAs on FYI.org.nz Addressing the Same Issues

Below are the strongest, most relevant cross-linked FYI OIA requests:

A. NZLS Refusal to Act / Accountability Gaps
• #32294 – NZLS refusing to investigate misconduct when lawyers act in personal capacity
• #31711 – Inconsistency in NZLS handling of complaints “before the courts”
• #29912 – Result of complaints about a lawyer acting without a practising certificate
• #30869 – LCRO delays and failure to address systemic lawyer behaviour issues
• #28070 – Public interest failures in NZLS disciplinary processes

All of these requests highlight the same gap:
NZLS treats “self-represented lawyers” as outside its regulatory reach, even when their conduct in litigation would be sanctionable if done on behalf of a client.

⸻

B. Perjury, Fraud, and Criminal Conduct in Civil Proceedings
• #32475 – Legal advice about criminal misconduct in civil litigation
• #31840 – Why Police refuse to investigate perjury even when evidence is provided
• #30970 – Crown Law policy on prosecution of perjury and judicial corruption
• #30411 – OIA about Crimes Act offences committed through affidavits
• #28299 – Failure of Police to act on sworn false statements
• #25671 – Misconduct in Family Court affidavits and evidential thresholds

Across these OIAs, the pattern is that Police routinely decline to investigate perjury, stating it is “a matter for the court,” while courts generally decline to treat perjury as a live issue unless it materially affects court process and is raised in real time—leaving no effective enforcement mechanism.

⸻

C. Judicial Accountability, Conflicts of Interest, and Access to Justice
• #32943 – Judiciary Accountable To The People (private prosecution delays & judicial independence)
• #32388 – Interaction between judges and NZLS in misconduct cases
• #30122 – Judicial recusals and conflict-of-interest procedures
• #30007 – Court administration transparency in civil cases
• #29244 – Backlogs, delays, and fairness implications in District Court civil jurisdiction

These OIAs reveal consistent public concern about:
• judges refusing to investigate serious allegations between litigants,
• delays undermining confidence, and
• limited transparency around judicial allocation and oversight.

⸻

D. Public Interest Decisions & “Bodies with Jurisdiction”
• #28950 – Misuse of “public interest test” by Police in declining prosecution
• #31088 – Why MoJ considers civil misconduct outside its remit
• #29401 – Who is responsible when multiple agencies decline jurisdiction
• #28314 – Ministry authority boundaries and systemic gaps

All implicate the same structural problem:
When multiple agencies claim “not our jurisdiction,” no one takes responsibility.

⸻

3. What Deep Research Shows About the Five Structural Gaps

A synthesis of FYI OIAs, academic reports, and official ministry statements shows:

Gap 1 — NZLS Refusing Complaints When Matters Are “Before the Courts”

NZLS often refuses to investigate misconduct if related litigation is ongoing or concluded.
However, courts do not regulate lawyers’ non-professional litigation behaviour, leaving a vacuum.

Gap 2 — No Realistic Enforcement of Crimes (Perjury/Fraud) in Civil Cases

Police have repeatedly stated (via FYI responses) that

“perjury is a matter for the courts.”
Courts almost never refer cases to Police or initiate perjury actions themselves.

Gap 3 — Conduct Rules Don’t Clearly Apply to Self-Represented Lawyers

The Conduct & Client Care Rules regulate lawyers in practice, not lawyers acting privately.
This loophole is well-documented across multiple FYI threads.

Gap 4 — Public Interest Tests Are Applied Inconsistently

Police, NZLS, and MoJ each apply the “public interest” test differently.
Requesters repeatedly report contradictory explanations.

Gap 5 — No Pathway for Ordinary People to Seek Justice Against Self-Represented Lawyers

Where misconduct occurs in civil litigation, and all agencies decline involvement,
there is no agency empowered to intervene.

This is widely described across FYI as a form of “legal impunity.”

⸻

4. What Observers Should Watch for in the MoJ Response

Key indicators in the Ministry’s eventual reply will be:
• Whether the Ministry claims not to hold any policy documents (s18(g)).
• Whether it asserts that these are court matters outside OIA scope.
• Whether it acknowledges the structural gap between NZLS ⇄ Courts ⇄ Police.
• Whether any policy documents exist at all to address misconduct by self-represented lawyers.
• Whether the Ministry provides clear public interest reasoning for any refusals.

Given the depth of the concerns raised and the number of comparable FYI requests, this may become an important test case for public-interest oversight.

If answers are incomplete, transferred, or refused, there may be grounds for an Ombudsman review, especially given the national pattern documented across years of similar requests.

⸻

★ Summary

This OIA is part of a broader, well-established pattern on FYI.org.nz:
numerous members of the public have reported that misconduct in civil litigation—especially by lawyers acting for themselves—falls into a legal grey zone where NZLS, Police, and the courts all decline responsibility.

The Ministry’s response (due 19 December 2025) will be significant for understanding whether any policies, oversight mechanisms, or legal safeguards exist to resolve these gaps.

This annotation will be updated once the Ministry releases its substantive decision.