Meet Inspiration.

At K3 Legal, we’re challenging convention.

Instead of leaning on standard solutions, our Auckland lawyers dip into a pool of experience and skill to find the right answers for you.

We work as one, sharing and developing solutions as a team. This means you’ll benefit from the experience of all our legal specialists, not just the ones you work closest with.

Our Auckland lawyers give you practical solutions for the real world, rather than ivory tower opinions that mean little.

We guide you through the storm.

Information for Clients

Standard Terms of Engagement

Anti-Money Laundering Requirements and Documents



Our depth of experience and expertise means clients get the right team every time.

Our Difference.


We are business owners and entrepreneurs, providing a highly commercial and pragmatic approach for clients.

Our People.


Our multi-cultural, multi-disciplinary Lawyers are all experts in their respective areas.


  • Standard form small trade contracts: the imposition of a requirement for “fairness”
    by Evie Bello on May 24, 2022 at 10:59 pm

    The Fair Trading Amendment Act 2021 (the Amendment Act) comes into force in August 2022 and makes a number of changes to NZ’s Fair Trading Act 1986. Most significantly, the Amendment Act extends the existing unfair contract term (UCT) regime to small trade contracts. The purpose of this extension is to protect small businesses from UCTs found in non-negotiable, “take it or leave it” arrangements. In practice, the upcoming changes mean that certain standard clauses commonly found in small trade terms, such as those extremely limiting or denying liability, may need to be reconsidered for compliance.

  • K3 Legal's Julie Ding and julia leenoh named as 2022 rising stars
    by (K3) on February 28, 2022 at 3:34 am

    K3 Legal's Julie Ding and Julia Leenoh have been recognised in the NZ Lawyer Rising Stars list for 2022. This list names the standout young stars from the New Zealand legal profession, all under 35 years of age.Julie Ding is one of K3's directors leading the litigation practice, with a primary focus on complex fraud, money laundering, and other evasive practices by parties in litigation. This includes a wide ranging criminal defence practice, managing a number of associates and solicitors practicing in this area.  Senior Associate, Julia Leenoh is part of the litigation and disputes resolution team, but is an all rounder with capability to provide advice in all areas of the law from property, construction, employment, commercial and family matters.Read the full NZ Lawyer report here -

  • When guardians can't agree – vaccinations and guardianship directions for children
    by Chantel Goodman on February 28, 2022 at 1:04 am

    With vaccinations underway for anyone aged five years and over, family lawyers have experienced a surge in guardianship applications relating to the vaccination of children. This is only set to rise with the rollout of vaccinations against COVID-19 for children aged between five and eleven, which commenced on 17 January 2022.   The Care of Children Act 2004 (COCA) outlines the duties, powers, rights and responsibilities of a guardian. These responsibilities include the determination of important matters that affect a child. Important matters encompass medical decisions that are non-routine in nature. While the COCA does not define ‘routine’ or ‘non-routine’ medical treatment, the Family Court has determined that vaccination is a non-routine medical treatment. The practical implication of this is that both guardians either need to jointly agree to the child’s vaccination, or jointly agree that the child should not be vaccinated.   Where guardians cannot agree, applications can be made under section 46R of the COCA for guardianship directions. This essentially puts the decision in the hands of the Court after consideration of the parties’ positions. Whenever a guardianship decision is made, the primary consideration is the best interests and welfare of the child. There have been recent Family Court decisions where the Court has been asked to determine whether a child should be vaccinated in accordance with the Ministry of Health immunisation schedule when the guardians cannot agree. The Court has emphasised that in making these decisions, the individual circumstances of each child must be taken into account. The Court is also required to take the child’s views into account, although those views do not determine the issue.