Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choices for the South Pacific Region’s Bar Associations and Law Societies?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Small States in a Legal World

Part of the book series: The World of Small States ((WSS,volume 1))

Abstract

A robust model for the regulation of the legal profession is a necessary condition for upholding the rule of law and maintaining public confidence in the legal and justice systems in any state. And in the South Pacific, a large geographical region peppered with numerous small states, the need for an effective and robust regulatory model for processing and investigating complaints and disciplining legal practitioners cannot be overstated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011a), p. 12.

  2. 2.

    Ibid, p. 13. See also Ibid, p. 2; South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011c), p. 5.

  3. 3.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011a), pp. 12 & 14–15. See also South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), p. 2: The current membership was extended from 11 to 15 member countries.

  4. 4.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011a), pp. 14–16.

  5. 5.

    South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011b), pp. 8–10.

  6. 6.

    South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011a), p. 13.

  7. 7.

    More information available at http://www.usp.ac.fj/. Accessed 10 July 2016. See also, http://www.usp.ac.fj/fileadmin/scripts/HandbookAndCalendar/HandbookAndCalendar_2016_en.pdf for their 2016 Handbook and Calendar. Accessed 10 July 2016, p. 22.

  8. 8.

    South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011d), p. 6.

  9. 9.

    Palmer, in South Pacific Lawyers Association (2013), p. 3.

  10. 10.

    Ray, in ibid.

  11. 11.

    Ray, in South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), p. 5. See also South Pacific Lawyers Association (2013), pp. 3–4 & Appendix I for a breakdown of practitioner numbers across the South Pacific region.

  12. 12.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011b), p. 6.

  13. 13.

    Cartledge, in South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011d), p. 9.

  14. 14.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011b), pp. 6–7.

  15. 15.

    Cartledge, in South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011d), p. 6.

  16. 16.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011b), p. 7.

  17. 17.

    Ibid, p. 8.

  18. 18.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011a), p. 10.

  19. 19.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011b), p. 7.

  20. 20.

    Chou-Lee, in South Pacific Lawyers Association (2013), p. 7.

  21. 21.

    Chou-Lee, in ibid., p. 13.

  22. 22.

    Chou-Lee, in South Pacific Lawyers Association (2013), p. 13.

  23. 23.

    Chou-Lee, in ibid., p. 14.

  24. 24.

    South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), pp. 6 & 6–20.

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    Ibid, p. 18.

  27. 27.

    Ibid, p. 19.

  28. 28.

    Chou-Lee, in South Pacific Lawyers Association (2013), pp. 13–14.

  29. 29.

    Chou-Lee, in ibid., p. 14.

  30. 30.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), p. 14.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2013), p. 14. See also South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), pp. 25–31.

  33. 33.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), pp. 25–26.

  34. 34.

    Ibid.

  35. 35.

    Regina v Ashley [2011] SBHC 169. Available at http://www.paclii.org/sb/cases/SBHC/2011/169.html. Accessed 10 July 2016.

  36. 36.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), p. 27.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    [2013] WSSC 1. Available at http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2013/11.html. Accessed 10 July 2016.

  39. 39.

    Ibid, paras 6, 11–12. See also Keresoma (2013).

  40. 40.

    Chou-Lee, in South Pacific Lawyers Association (2013), p. 13.

  41. 41.

    Available at http://www.paclii.org/fj/promu/promu_dec/lpd2009220. Accessed 10 July 2016. See, in particular, s 184(1) which repeals the Legal Practitioners Act 1997 and s 84. See also http://www.southpacificlawyers.org/member/republic-fiji-islands. Accessed 10 July 2016.

  42. 42.

    Chief Registrar v Adish Kumar Narayan No. 9 of 2013 [Ruling] (25 Sept 2013), p. 5, para 27.

  43. 43.

    See Legal Practitioners Decree 2009. See also Law Council of Australia (2013), p. 18.

  44. 44.

    NSW Law Reform Commission (1993), pp. 71–129. For more detail, see NSW Law Reform Commission. Available at http://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au. Accessed 10 July 2016; Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. Available at http://www.olsc.nsw.gov.au. Accessed 10 July 2016. See also Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997. Available at http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+76+1997+cd+0+N. Accessed 10 July 2016; Law Council of Australia (2013).

  45. 45.

    Legal Practitioners Decree 2009, s 99. See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  46. 46.

    Legal Practitioners Decree 2009, s 102. See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  47. 47.

    Ibid, s 122(2). See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  48. 48.

    Chief Registrar v Abhay Singh Independent Legal Services Commission No 1 of 2009 [Judgment] (25 Jan 2010). See also Abhay Kumar Singh v Chief Registrar of the High Court No 3 of 2010 Court of Appeal of Fiji [Judgment] (22 Sept 2010); Abhay Kumar Singh v Chief Registrar of the High Court of Fiji No 7 of 2010 Supreme Court of Fiji [Judgment] (20 Oct 2011); Law Council of Australia (2013).

  49. 49.

    See Chief Registrar v Vipul Mishra, Mehboob Raza, Muhammad Shamsud-Dean Sahu Khan, Sahu Khan & Sahu Khan Independent Legal Services Commission No 2 of 2010 [Judgment] (3 Mar 2011); Chief Registrar v Divendra Prasad Independent Legal Services Commission No 3 of 2011 [Sentence] (7 Mar 2012). See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  50. 50.

    See Chief Registrar v Vipul Mishra, Mehboob Raza, Muhammad Shamsud-Dean Sahu Khan, Sahu Khan & Sahu Khan Independent Legal Services Commission No 2 of 2010 [Judgment] (3 Mar 2011); Chief Registrar v Divendra Prasad Independent Legal Services Commission No 3 of 2011 [Sentence] (7 Mar 2012). See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  51. 51.

    Chief Registrar v Vipul Mishra, Mehboob Raza, Muhammad Shamsud-Dean Sahu Khan, Sahu Khan & Sahu Khan Independent Legal Services Commission No 2 of 2010 [Judgment on Sentence – 3rd Respondent] (4 May 2011), paras 25, 48–50. See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  52. 52.

    Chief Registrar v John Rabuku Independent Legal Services No 13 of 2013 [Judgment and Sentence] (30 Jul 2013) para 4. See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  53. 53.

    Chief Registrar v Mohammed Azeem Ud-Dean Sahu Khan Independent Legal Services No 16 of 2013 [Judgment and Sentence] (30 Jul 2013). See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  54. 54.

    Chief Registrar v Kelera Baleisuva Buatoka Independent Legal Services No 20 of 2013 [Judgment] (11 Oct 2013). See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  55. 55.

    Chief Registrar v Siteri Adidreu Cevalawa Independent Legal Services No 6 of 2011 [Extempore Ruling on Sentence] (5 Dec 2011). See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  56. 56.

    Chief Registrar v Adi Kolora Naliva Independent Legal Services No 4 of 2011 [Extempore Judgment] (5 Dec 2011). See also Chief Registrar v Kini Marawai and Marawai Law Independent Legal Services No 6 of 2012 [Judgment and Sentence] (15 May 2013); See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  57. 57.

    See also Chief Registrar v Alena Koroi Independent Legal Services No 5 of 2011 [Sentence] (14 Mar 2012). See also Chief Registrar v Amrit Sen Independent Legal Services No 10 of 2013 [Judgment] (6 Nov 2013); Law Council of Australia (2013).

  58. 58.

    See also Chief Registrar v Savenaca Komaisavai Independent Legal Services No 21 of 2013 [Judgment] (8 Oct 2013). See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  59. 59.

    Chief Registrar v Anand Singh Independent Legal Services No 24 of 2013 [Judgment] (7 Nov 2013), para 33. See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  60. 60.

    Chief Registrar v Niko Nawaikula and Savenaca Komaisavai Independent Legal Services No 9 of 2012 [Judgment and Sentence] (12 Apr 2013), para 22. See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  61. 61.

    Legal Practitioners Decree 2009, s 52(2). See also Chief Registrar v Laisa Lagilevu Independent Legal Services No 1 of 2012 [Decision] (16 Mar 2012), para 3; Law Council of Australia (2013).

  62. 62.

    Chief Registrar v Kini Marawai and Rajendra Chaudhry Independent Legal Services No 2 of 2012 [Sentence] (5 Oct 2012), para 21. See also Law Council of Australia (2013).

  63. 63.

    Chief Registrar v Haroon Ali Shah Independent Legal Services No 7 of 2012 [Sentence] (22 Jun 2012), para 37.

  64. 64.

    See South Pacific Lawyers Association (2013), p. 9.

  65. 65.

    South Pacific Lawyers Association (2014), p. 4.

  66. 66.

    Ibid, p. 5.

  67. 67.

    Ibid.

  68. 68.

    Ibid.

  69. 69.

    Ibid.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, The University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji

    Nilesh N. Bilimoria

  2. Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Nilesh N. Bilimoria

Authors
  1. Nilesh N. Bilimoria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nilesh N. Bilimoria .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Petra Butler

  2. School of Law, Queen Mary University of London , London, United Kingdom

    Caroline Morris

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix 1: Size of National Law Associations in the South Pacific

 

National Law Associations in the South Pacific

Private

Public

Total

1

Cook Is

32

12

44

2

Fiji Law Society

230

296

526

3

Kiribati Law Society

12

29

37

4

Nauru Law Society

0

7

7

5

Niue Lawyers

1

5

6

6

Norfolk Is Bar Association

4

5

9

7

Papua New Guinea Law Society

591

288

879

8

Samoa Law Society

40

52

92

9

Solomon Is Bar Association

42

48

100

10

Tonga Law Society

41

11

52

11

Tuvalu Lawyers

1

10

11

12

Vanuatu Law Society

40

37

77

  1. South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), pp. 5, 14

1.2 Appendix 2: National Associations in the South Pacific Complaints/Discipline Handling Systems

 

National Law Associations in the South Pacific

Complaints/Discipline Handling System in Place?

Body/Institution Disciplining

  

Yes

No

 

1

Cook Is

X

 

* CJ High Court of Cook Is – receives/investigates/disciplines

* Cook Islands Law Society – no role in receives/investigates/disciplines

2

Fiji Law Society

X

X

* FLS – receives/investigates/disciplines (mid 2009)

* LPU under CR High Court – receives/investigates/disciplines

3

Kiribati Law Society

X

 

* The Council (members of KLS) establishes a Professional Conduct Committee (AG, lawyer, lay person)

4

Nauru Law Society

 

X

* Rests with the jurisdiction of the Courts

5

Niue Lawyers

 

X

* 1x Prvt. lawyer – Silent 5x Govt Lawyers <Niue Ombudsman>

6

Norfolk Is Bar Association

X

 

* NBA – Professional Conduct Board – Supreme Court of Norfolk Is

7

Papua New Guinea Law Society

X

 

* Lawyers Statutory Committee (AG, member of Council of the Law Society>, 3x lawyers, 2x non lawyers)

8

Samoa Law Society

X

 

* Council of the Samoa Law Society establishes the Complaints and Investigation Committee (members of the Society) to Lawyers Disciplinary Tribunal (senior lawyer (8 years), lawyer (5), non-lawyer)

9

Solomon Is Bar Association

X

 

* SIBA – AG – establishes Disciplinary Panel (AG Chair)

10

Tonga Law Society

X

 

* TLS establishes Disciplinary Committee (AG, CJ, member of the Bench, Secretary of the Society)

11

Tuvalu Lawyers

X

 

* 1x Prvt. Lawyer (Not Available – Peoples Lawyer Act 2008), 10x Govt. (Office of the AG)

12

Vanuatu Law Society

X

 

* Law Council (CJ, AG, 1x Lawyer) appoint Disciplinary Committee (judicial officer, 1x lawyer, 3x non-lawyers)

  1. South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), p. 25

1.3 Appendix 3: Complaints Against Practitioners: Fiji

Year

Total number of complaints received

Dealt with through mediation

Prosecution

Total dealt with

# of LOs # IO

2009

411 (300 files inherited from FLS)

3

9

12 [399]

1 and 1

2010

332

53

23

76 [256]

2 and 1

2011

300

57

5

62 [238]

2 and 1

2012

307

120

10

130 [177]

5 and 3

2013

333

119

39

158 [175]

4 and 2

2014

271

140

17

157 [114]

4 and 3

2015 (31 Aug)

159

91

3

94 [65]

3 and 3

 

Pending

  

1424

 
  1. Source: Chief Registrar – Legal Practitioners Unit – 4/9//2015

1.4 Appendix 4: Professional Association Membership

 

National Law Associations in the South Pacific

Private

Population

Ratio

1

Cook Is

32

11,124

1:348

2

Fiji Law Society

230

888,125

1:3840

3

Kiribati Law Society

12

100,743

1:12,593

4

Nauru Law Society

0

9322

N/A

5

Niue Lawyers

1

1311

1:1311

6

Norfolk Is Bar Association

4

2169

1:542

7

Papua New Guinea Law Society

591

6,187,591

1:10,470

8

Samoa Law Society

40

193,161

1:4829

9

Solomon Is Bar Association

42

571,890

1:13,616

10

Tonga Law Society

41

105,916

1:2583

11

Tuvalu Lawyers

1

10,544

1:10,544

12

Vanuatu Law Society

40

224,564

1:5614

  1. Source: South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), pp. 5, 14

1.5 Appendix 5: Trust Account Requirements

 

National Law Associations in the South Pacific

Are Legal Practitioners Required to Hold Trust Accounts?

Yes

No

1

Cook Is

  

X

2

Fiji Law Society

 

X

 

3

Kiribati Law Society

  

X

4

Nauru Law Society

  

X

5

Niue Lawyers

  

X

6

Norfolk Is Bar Association

  

X

7

Papua New Guinea Law Society

 

X

 

8

Samoa Law Society

 

X

 

9

Solomon Is Bar Association

  

X

10

Tonga Law Society

  

X

11

Tuvalu Lawyers

  

X

12

Vanuatu Law Society

  

X

  1. Source: South Pacific Lawyers Association (2011e), p. 40

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bilimoria, N.N. (2017). Choices for the South Pacific Region’s Bar Associations and Law Societies?. In: Butler, P., Morris, C. (eds) Small States in a Legal World. The World of Small States, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39366-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39366-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-39365-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-39366-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation