Advocacy in New Zealand Employment Law: Navigating a Grey Space

Advocacy in New Zealand Employment Law: Navigating a Grey Space

When facing employment issues in New Zealand, workers often find themselves at a crossroads: should they hire a lawyer, or an employment advocate? Unlike lawyers, who are heavily regulated, advocates operate in what many call a grey space of representation. This system has both positives and negatives for employees seeking help.

Lawyers vs. Advocates: The Key Distinction

In New Zealand, the use of the title "lawyer" is strictly regulated. Under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA), only those holding a current practising certificate issued by the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) may call themselves lawyers or barristers and solicitors. Section 21 of the LCA makes it an offence to provide legal services without such authorisation.

By contrast, there are no statutory restrictions on who may call themselves an employment advocate. Section 236 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) expressly allows any person to represent another in employment matters before the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) or the Employment Court. This provision keeps the barriers to entry low, enabling almost anyone to set themselves up as an advocate.

The Positives and Negatives of Low Barriers to Entry

The accessibility of advocacy has undeniable advantages. Employees often cannot afford the high hourly rates of lawyers—many of whom charge upwards of $400–$600 per hour. Advocates fill that gap, offering services at lower rates, flexible payment arrangements (including no win, no fee), and a more approachable style for workers intimidated by formal legal channels.

On the other hand, the lack of regulation in the advocacy space also carries risks. Many advocates may have no legal training, no professional indemnity insurance, and there are no formal accountability mechanisms if something goes wrong. The Employment Relations Authority and Employment Court have highlighted these risks, noting that poor advocacy can prolong proceedings and add unnecessary costs for all involved.

While there are certainly risks and consequences of picking a bad advocate, this does not mean that all advocates are bad. See below the anecdotal experience of an employee in need of representation.

A Personal Experience (Anonymously Shared): Lessons Learned

When I needed representation in an employment dispute in 2023, I explored both employment lawyers and advocates. One employment lawyer I contacted asked for a $5,000 retainer upfront—before even discussing the details of my case. I was shocked by the requirement and realised quickly that legal fees could be far beyond my reach.

When I hired my first advocate, I relied on reviews of his business and did not realise until much later that he only had a real estate qualification and no legal background. He charged me $350 per hour payable upfront. When I requested escalation of the case through a formal PG, he admitted that he could not pursue it and could not achieve the outcome I wanted. I paid him out of my own pocket for his time and decided to change representatives.

Next, I engaged another advocate with no formal degree but with 35 years of advocacy experience. He charged $120 per hour, worked with me on a no win - no fee basis, spent a whole lot more time on my case than the first advocate did and ultimately achieved the result I had been hoping for - a quick and fair outcome. He acted with compassion, understanding and professionalism. Even without a degree in law, he had all the knowledge needed for the handling of my case.

This journey taught me an important lesson: fees are not always reflective of credentials, and credentials are not always reflective of capability. The best representative is the one who combines genuine expertise with a commitment to achieving the client’s goals, regardless of titles or hourly rates.

Advocates at Our Firm: Balancing Experience with Legal Accuracy

While not all of our advocates are practicing lawyers, most have studied law and possess a deep understanding of New Zealand employment law. For those advocates who do not have a formal legal background, we ensure quality and accuracy by pairing them with legally trained colleagues. This collaborative approach means our clients benefit from both practical advocacy experience and legal precision.

Final Thoughts

The grey space of advocacy in New Zealand offers both opportunity and risk. Employees should approach the choice of representative with caution, balancing affordability, expertise, and trust.

While the law permits broad representation under the ERA, the best outcomes come when advocates—whether legally trained or not—combine real-world experience, passion for workplace justice with legal accuracy.

For employees, the lesson is clear: ask questions, assess both experience and approach, and remember that capability is not defined by a degree or a price tag.

A bad employment advocate can not only cost you a favourable outcome but also leave you in a position where you have to cover the costs for the other parties' legal fees and no recourse against your advocate. Whereas a good advocate may also not cost as much and still achieve the best outcome possible for your case. So choose wisely.