The "regulate employment advocates" debate comes up regularly. This page collects the main points, including the independent review material that addressed the topic and why there was no compelling case for expanding regulation, and why the better response is non-regulatory public guidance and existing conduct and costs powers.
Summary
- Regulation has costs. A serious policy change needs evidence of widespread harm.
- Independent review material referenced here did not identify widespread consumer harm that justified pulling non-lawyers into the lawyers' regulatory framework.
- Where improvement is needed, the answer should be non-regulatory: public guidance, template documents, clearer mediation practice, existing costs consequences, and better use of existing procedural powers.
The Independent Report
There is no case for new regulation of employment advocates. Submissions from ELINZ and others did not make out an evidence-based case for regulating employment advocates. The point remains the same now: employer annoyance, competitor pressure, and isolated anecdotes are not a basis for a licensing regime.
"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 at the time. The final independent review report of March 2023, Regulating Lawyers in Aotearoa New Zealand, did not identify widespread consumer harm justifying bringing non-lawyers within the lawyers' regulatory framework. The correct answer is no new advocate regulation unless independent evidence proves widespread advocate-specific harm that existing powers cannot address." Lawrence Anderson
Submissions by Lawrence Anderson on Employment Advocate Regulation
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.
No new advocate regulator
Non-binding best-practice guidance is different from regulation. MBIE can publish template Terms of Engagement, Authority to Act forms, settlement-authority checklists, and plain-language guidance about fee disclosure without creating a licensing regime. Those documents would help clients ask better questions while preserving choice, competition, and access to justice.
A new regulator would add cost, delay, boundary disputes, and market-control risk. It would also risk being captured by lawyers, employer-side bodies, or membership groups with a financial interest in reducing competition. The starting point should be evidence, not occupational protection.
Our observation of The Employment Law Institute of New Zealand ELINZ
- Not treating complaints made to ELINZ with confidentiality.
- Gossiping to us about complaints made about other ELINZ members.
- Demanding third parties to provide information to use against our clients.
- Pressuring advocates to flip against their employee clients.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
What readers should take away
- Choose representation based on competence, transparency, and ethics - not just job titles.
- Fee clarity and written terms matter. Ask for them.
- Do not confuse regulation with quality. Quality comes from evidence, process, transparency, client choice, and existing accountability tools.
