But I wanted to get it to your inbox first thing today with a bit of added background.
Webworm can report that various health professionals involved in gender affirming care in New Zealand have received a threatening legal letter from Wellington law firm Franks Ogilvie. Franks Ogilvie is the law firm of former ACT list MP Stephen Franks.
Stephen Franks of Franks Ogilvie law
The letter was sent on behalf of Inflection Point NZ, an anti-trans lobby group that boasts speakers including Destiny church’s Brian Tamaki, Family First’s Bob McCroskie, and former National MP Simon O’Connor.
The letter puts recipients “on notice” that they may one day face “legal action” in relation to prescribing puberty blockers and other gender affirming care.
This is all scaremongering horseshit, but healthcare workers Webworm spoke to understandably felt “scared” by the language used.
The threats remind me of the anti-lockdown protests in Wellington in 2022 — where protestors claimed Jacinda Ardern and other politicians would be tried for treason and hanged.
Health New Zealand is backing the healthcare workers, sending a letter to staff.
Webworm has obtained a copy of the letter and has reprinted it in its entirety below.
Letter from law firm representing Inflection Point NZ
In the last few days some of you may have received a letter from the legal firm Franks Ogilvie on behalf of their client, Inflection Point NZ.
The letter states that Inflection Point NZ is an association that “seeks to limit the harm to New Zealanders, especially minors, from gender-related indoctrination and medicalisation.”
This letter has been sent very widely to healthcare professionals who the authors consider may be involved in providing gender affirming care. It is a generic letter which claims to be putting clinicians “on notice” that they may at some point in the future be liable for legal action in relation to prescribing puberty blockers and other genderaffirming care.
The tone of the letter is threatening and appears to be designed to discourage clinicians from providing gender-affirming care.
A similar letter has been sent to the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa (“PATHA”) and to many providers of these services in the community.
It is clear from the letter that Inflection Point NZ does not currently have a cognisable basis for any actual legal claims, nor do they have standing to issue legal proceedings or make a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner. Indeed, the letter acknowledges that Franks Ogilvie have not attempted to assess the prospects of litigation by any particular individual who has received gender affirming care.
We do not consider that the letter from Franks Ogilvie warrants a response and Health New Zealand (“Health NZ”) does not intend to engage with them. Health NZ’s position is that you should continue to use your best clinical judgement in providing gender-affirming care to patients. If you have any concerns, we encourage you to reach out to your local clinical leadership for advice and support.
We acknowledge that receiving a letter like this can be very distressing and that it is challenging delivering healthcare in areas where there is an increased level of public attention or scrutiny.
We have identified additional support services available to our kaimahi working in the area of gender affirming care in the way of wellbeing, health and safety and personal security resources. These can be accessed by contacting your line manager for an individual conversation to address any specific concerns you may have.
Access to confidential counselling and support is also available through the Health NZ Employee Assistance Programme.
Please be assured that, if any complaints were to be received or legal action taken in respect of gender affirming care provided by health professionals employed by Health New Zealand, the organisation and its legal team would support you and take the lead in responding to any complaints or legal proceedings issued in relation to that care. You would also have access to individual legal support from your own professional indemnity insurer.
You are welcome to seek advice or reach out to your professional indemnity insurer or professional body (and to send them the letter from Franks Ogilvie) if you wish to do so.
We are grateful for your ongoing work in supporting this complex patient group in these challenging and stressful circumstances.
This is not the first time Franks Ogilvie has become involved in anti-trans matters, the firm also supporting anti-trans group LAVA in their case against the Wellington Pride Festival.
Both Franks and another lawyer at the firm, Bridget Morten, are also legal counsel for Hobson’s Pledge, the lobby group founded to — amongst other things — oppose affirmative action for Māori.
Franks regularly sprouts bullshit on New Zealand’s public broadcaster RNZ, telling them just last week, “I think there’s been this view that if you are dealing with Maori organisations rules don’t apply. And we’ve come across it many times. I came across it when I was an MP.”
I do find it frustrating when the law is used to scare the shit out of people just trying to do their job.
I know a little of this feeling. A New Zealand lawyer was hired to send me threats over Tickled (fun reading) before I got sued twice in two US states.
Here on Webworm I get cease & desists here and there — and thanks to paying readers can afford to engage a lawyer to write back and keep stories online.
All of this sucks shit.
It’s never not scary.
In saying that — I know I am getting into legally risky areas. It’s a big part of what Webworm is about.
The New Zealand healthcare workers targeted by Franks Ogilvie are just trying to do their fucking jobs. They don’t need to feel any more scared.
If there’s any positive in all of this, it’s that Health New Zealand is standing behind its people. This especially:
Please be assured that, if any complaints were to be received or legal action taken in respect of gender affirming care provided by health professionals employed by Health New Zealand, the organisation and its legal team would support you and take the lead in responding to any complaints or legal proceedings issued in relation to that care.
A lawyer must use legal processes only for proper purposes. A lawyer must not use, or knowingly assist in using, the law or legal processes for the purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to another person’s reputation, interests, or occupation.
From what I can tell, the only reason for the letter’s existence is to be intimidatory, and like the threats of hangings outside parliament during Covid, appears to lack any legal merit.
The fact that the lawyer’s client, Inflection Point NZ, wanted the letter written does not excuse any breach of the rules.
If any lawyers reading Webworm want to explain to me how Stephen Franks and his team of dogs can keep swinging their limp dicks around like this, I’d be curious.
If you have any further information and would like to get in touch in confidence, I am always: davidfarrier@protonmail.com. If you aren’t already, and want to support Webworm, you can sign up here:
I have complained to the Law Society as I see it as breach of their rules as defined in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act - “a lawyer must not engage in conduct that tends to bring the profession into disrepute” and further 10.3 states “a lawyer must not engage in conduct that amounts to (c) harassment:”. Harassment is further defined as “intimidating, threatening, or degrading behaviour directed towards a person ... that is likely to have a harmful effect on the recipient;" The Law Society complaints service is here - https://www.lawsociety.org.nz - and you do not have to be the recipient of a letter to complain. As a colleague of a recipient and a Professor of Nursing, I believe I have a duty to my profession to speak out about Stephen Franks' behaviour.
Lawyer in the US, solicitor in the UK, and this is all fucking garbage, but a little insight on why it's difficult to police this: Lawyers are, in most common law countries (though I can't speak to NZ) self-policed on more nuanced areas of ethics. Many ethics rules are guidelines and are not binding (there's a lot of reasons for this, but it would take me a tiny essay and I'm already gearing up for a long comment.)
Intimidation tactics are exactly the sort of thing that falls into the grey area of "well you shouldn't do this," but rarely end up included in rules with any real teeth attached to it. Litigation is, at its core, an intimidation game. We have an adversarial systems, and as such, almost any legal correspondence could be classified as an intimidation attempt. That very fine-line is the reason most jurisdictions don't even attempt to interfere with abusive legal threats. That said, there are some cases (see: straight up lying about grounds for a case, specific and targeted abuse towards an individual, etc.) that could lead to fines, but it's very rare to see these cases come up and it depends on the ethics board (staffed by lawyers) of that jurisdiction.
This is all to say: Shakespeare had something of a point with 'kill all the lawyers,' but I hope someone raises this to the appropriate ethics board in NZ and that they see this abuse of the legal system for what it is. But historically, it is unlikely anyone would take on that mess.
I have complained to the Law Society as I see it as breach of their rules as defined in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act - “a lawyer must not engage in conduct that tends to bring the profession into disrepute” and further 10.3 states “a lawyer must not engage in conduct that amounts to (c) harassment:”. Harassment is further defined as “intimidating, threatening, or degrading behaviour directed towards a person ... that is likely to have a harmful effect on the recipient;" The Law Society complaints service is here - https://www.lawsociety.org.nz - and you do not have to be the recipient of a letter to complain. As a colleague of a recipient and a Professor of Nursing, I believe I have a duty to my profession to speak out about Stephen Franks' behaviour.
Lawyer in the US, solicitor in the UK, and this is all fucking garbage, but a little insight on why it's difficult to police this: Lawyers are, in most common law countries (though I can't speak to NZ) self-policed on more nuanced areas of ethics. Many ethics rules are guidelines and are not binding (there's a lot of reasons for this, but it would take me a tiny essay and I'm already gearing up for a long comment.)
Intimidation tactics are exactly the sort of thing that falls into the grey area of "well you shouldn't do this," but rarely end up included in rules with any real teeth attached to it. Litigation is, at its core, an intimidation game. We have an adversarial systems, and as such, almost any legal correspondence could be classified as an intimidation attempt. That very fine-line is the reason most jurisdictions don't even attempt to interfere with abusive legal threats. That said, there are some cases (see: straight up lying about grounds for a case, specific and targeted abuse towards an individual, etc.) that could lead to fines, but it's very rare to see these cases come up and it depends on the ethics board (staffed by lawyers) of that jurisdiction.
This is all to say: Shakespeare had something of a point with 'kill all the lawyers,' but I hope someone raises this to the appropriate ethics board in NZ and that they see this abuse of the legal system for what it is. But historically, it is unlikely anyone would take on that mess.