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.
It's a bit of an effort and I understand why recipients might not complain, but that does make it all the more important that others make a complaint. Tbh I have low expectations of the Law Society, but it might carry more weight if others do complain (I know at least two other people that are planning to do so).
I should point out that in my view s241 (c) of the Act probably doesn’t apply as it requires being guilty of negligence or incompetence. Which this probably isn’t. However Rule 10 does apply.
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.
Franks is one of the worst people alive. He believes some fucked up things about race, gender (obviously), and other hot button issues for brainworm-ridden folk. etc. But the thing that gets me is one time when I worked at parliament, I saw him piss all over his own shoes, like absolutely drench them. It was like he wasn’t even paying attention. Didn’t even wipe them off. Truly reprehensible.
There was definitely piss on his shoes and it was his piss. And this was like almost 15 years ago, so people weren’t glued to their phones like now. I wonder what hate crimes he was daydreaming about.
Hi. From a lawyer friend of Webworm, who has allowed me to post this on their behalf. Insightful, and grateful they sent me their thoughts:
**
You’re right that Rule 2.3 exists that says legal processes cannot be used for an improper purpose. The first forum for a Law Society complaint, if it passes through a triage process at the local branch, is to be referred to a Standards Committee. This is made up of practising lawyers and lay people, all volunteers. Committee decisions are confidential. A select few are published on the LS website in an anonymous, summarised format. Most complaints are heard and decided in this way so there’s limited visibility over what punishments are doled out, and what constitutes a breach (unsatisfactory conduct) at that level.
Some cases are published at higher levels - the LCRO is the appeal body for Standards Committee decisions, then judicial review for an LCRO decision. Then of course Disciplinary Tribunal decisions. These are of limited value because there isn’t a wealth of case law on each individual rule.
This is all to say it’s difficult, if not impossible, to see what would constitute an actual breach of this rule. Some examples in case law for rule 2.3 include registering a caveat on a title to land knowing there is not a caveatable interest to exert some pressure over the landowner, inflating an invoice as a creditor to increase their own voting power for some sort of insolvency process I don’t completely understand, and some other very limited examples. If the ‘improper purpose’ isn’t illegal, the line is murky.
You’re also right that client instructions do not justify a rule breach. It’s up to the lawyer to push back or refuse to accept instructions if they’re inconsistent with ethical obligations. It wouldn’t be a defence to say ‘but my client told me to!’ If there was a breach of any of the rules.
There’s also a really high bar for referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal, which is the only authority that can suspend or strike off a lawyer.
I’m aware of at least one person lodging a complaint with the Law Society about this letter. The rules of natural justice, and the way the Society applies those, means you can’t make an anonymous complaint otherwise I would. In my view, which again is not legal advice, threatening healthcare workers with ‘legal action’ for any perceived breach in prescribing or providing care is arguably delineating the line between professional consequences and court action. Any allegation of exceeding authority for those areas could only be dealt with by the HDC or a regulatory authority under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (I.e Nursing Council, Medical Council etc).
Is there some court involvement at some stages in these processes? Sure. The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal is court-like. The HDC can refer cases to the HPDT or the Human Rights Review Tribunal. There are some appeal rights to the High Court. But threatening a healthcare worker with ‘legal action’ for possible breaches of their scope of practice, is misleading when the only bodies that can consider those breaches can be guided by complaints from laypeople, healthcare consumers or concerned members of the public, but prosecute according to very specific guidelines (so it’s not up to the individual to prosecute or commence legal action in those jurisdictions). Any private court action could be barred by ACC legislation (if the allegation is a treatment injury), and any other cause of action would be novel so untested. I’m just bewildered by what this threatened legal action would even look like.
Thank you for this David. Personally, I'm just home from an intensive two day hui and training course in trans health, where I facilitated workshops and dialogue from healthcare professionals working in trans health. We talked about best practice, we shared clinical skills, we got to connect in the face of all this crap, and our security guard didn't have to deal with anything all day. It is really important to note that yes, some health professionals are scared and put off, but a bigger group are galvanised and this bogus legal interpretation is only making them want to do this healthcare more.
I’m so proud of you, David. For your stand on this issue and so many others. Every time I hear or see the name Bob McCroskie I want to puke. “Family First” my ass! We do have hope in Aotearoa, though. I’ve been studying Te Reo Māori for over a year at Te Whare Wananga O Awanuiārangi in Whakatāne at the ripe old age of 74 and the strong youth I see coming through the ranks are an inspiration! For my aromatawai tuatahi this term my Tangata Rongonui (famous person) my speech is about is none other than Eru Ruanui Tia Kapa-Kingi who bravely led the recent Hikoi to Wellington and who is actively fighting against David Seymour’s Bill. He also spoke so eloquently and affectionately at a gathering of our Rainbow folk “takatāpui ki Aotearoa” in Auckland last weekend affirming them all of his support and understanding in the struggle with Brian Tamaki and his thugs. Eru is one of these intelligent and knowledgeable young leaders we can be proud of. A law graduate and fluent in Te Reo, he’s a force to be reckoned with. Kia Kaha, Kia māia, Kia manawanui!
Thank you for continuing to shine a light on things like this! Bullies hate it when their intimidation tactics are exposed. Thank you for always standing up for trans youth 💖
Thank you for taking the time to cover this David, and to everyone in the comments section too.
While I would never dream of changing our daughter’s trans-ness (is that a word?), or hope that she was cisgender - and just currently confused?.. - in some vague desire to avoid complication, in all
honesty I do sometimes find myself wishing we could have an easier, safer path where she has a better shot at a life less tortured by these absolute spanners? And then I remind myself there are plenty of people who aren’t completely backwards about this and continue raising our delightful, challenging, maddening, adorable girl.x
This is just so wrong. Why can’t we just let trans people live their lives? Whom are they hurting by being themselves? No one. So why does it have to be this big issue? Just let them be.
Because they've committed the crime of being seen and thus making bigots uncomfortable. There's nothing more offensive to a bigot than making them uncomfortable.
And these people imagine themselves as the new aristocracy, and they need a permanent underclass who are forced to abide by their decrees.
As a person of faith - can I politely ask that you not assume what a person of faith's view on a subject is unless they disclose it. I have no idea what Simeon Brown's position is but he hasn't indicated anything as far as I'm aware to say that he's not fully supportive of these treats.
He is absolutely open about his faith, he is part of a Baptist church and his views, which are extremely conservative. He has opposed marriage equality, abortions, safe zones around abortion clinics, trans rights, and even harm minimisation measures like drug checking. He sat through the submissions od survivors and health professions speaking about the harm of conversion practices, and still voted against banning these traumatising practices. These are all health issues which he responds to on the basis of conservative faith views, not scientific evidence, medical expertise, or a valuing of human dignity and justice.
I know what you’re saying but we do know that Minister Brown religious conservatism does influence his political views, eg his views on abortion and conversion therapy
Steven Franks told me that I shouldn't work with male prisoners (via the Howard League, who tutor in prisons) because I would be raped by them when they got out. He seemed to think this was a reasonable piece of advice. He is one of the few people I've met who genuinely make my skin crawl
I have been disappointed for sometime with a couple of panelists getting airtime on Wallace Chatmans RNZ show. More so now reading the above. Providing balance is no excuse for minority bigots.
Funny (not really funny) how Franks accuses others of acting like the rules don't apply, while blatantly ignoring the rules that he should be following himself.
It seems to be something the conservative right all seem to have in common - a fundamental lack of self-awareness, leading to hypocrisy that is really quite remarkable. They never ever ever seem to engage in self-reflection.
As you, and others below have noted, writing a letter threatening that 'one day you'll be in trouble' does seem to breach various rules of the Code of Conduct, and at a the very least would justify a complaint to the Law Society (and it's worth noting that the NZLS has its own rules around diversity and gender equality). https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/diversity-and-inclusion/
The NZ law society think it's OK for lawyers to harass dead children's families, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn't breach their code of conduct.
Bizarre how libertarians who supposedly believe in individual freedoms are trying to police and regulate other people's lives and genitals.
As least she has seen disciplined here ..but for another quite different matterhttps://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawyers-complaints-service/decisions/standards-committee-decisions/2024/refusing-to-comply-with-judges-order-is-unsatisfactory-conduct/
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.
Bravo, and pinning this.
I’m a lawyer and this kind of conduct pisses me right off as it reflects badly on the rest of us. I will be making a complaint
Great work! *Every* person who received a letter should be encouraged to make a similar complaint along with anyone else who feels as you do.
It's a bit of an effort and I understand why recipients might not complain, but that does make it all the more important that others make a complaint. Tbh I have low expectations of the Law Society, but it might carry more weight if others do complain (I know at least two other people that are planning to do so).
When the law society responds in writing, maybe then the lines will become clear.
I came here to suggest complaining, but there is no price for second.
I think this is the email address:
complaints@lawsociety.org.nz
I should point out that in my view s241 (c) of the Act probably doesn’t apply as it requires being guilty of negligence or incompetence. Which this probably isn’t. However Rule 10 does apply.
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.
Maybe the firm and client should be challenged to a public debate, or at least an open letter in the newspapers requesting a clarification?
Franks is one of the worst people alive. He believes some fucked up things about race, gender (obviously), and other hot button issues for brainworm-ridden folk. etc. But the thing that gets me is one time when I worked at parliament, I saw him piss all over his own shoes, like absolutely drench them. It was like he wasn’t even paying attention. Didn’t even wipe them off. Truly reprehensible.
At least that's a change from pissing all over other people.
Not to yuck anyone’s yum…
That’s a crazy thing to witness, I bet you couldn’t look away as it happened
Just a weird thing to walk into a urinal and see.
I thought this was a euphemism, but gross, it’s literal?
There was definitely piss on his shoes and it was his piss. And this was like almost 15 years ago, so people weren’t glued to their phones like now. I wonder what hate crimes he was daydreaming about.
Hi. From a lawyer friend of Webworm, who has allowed me to post this on their behalf. Insightful, and grateful they sent me their thoughts:
**
You’re right that Rule 2.3 exists that says legal processes cannot be used for an improper purpose. The first forum for a Law Society complaint, if it passes through a triage process at the local branch, is to be referred to a Standards Committee. This is made up of practising lawyers and lay people, all volunteers. Committee decisions are confidential. A select few are published on the LS website in an anonymous, summarised format. Most complaints are heard and decided in this way so there’s limited visibility over what punishments are doled out, and what constitutes a breach (unsatisfactory conduct) at that level.
Some cases are published at higher levels - the LCRO is the appeal body for Standards Committee decisions, then judicial review for an LCRO decision. Then of course Disciplinary Tribunal decisions. These are of limited value because there isn’t a wealth of case law on each individual rule.
This is all to say it’s difficult, if not impossible, to see what would constitute an actual breach of this rule. Some examples in case law for rule 2.3 include registering a caveat on a title to land knowing there is not a caveatable interest to exert some pressure over the landowner, inflating an invoice as a creditor to increase their own voting power for some sort of insolvency process I don’t completely understand, and some other very limited examples. If the ‘improper purpose’ isn’t illegal, the line is murky.
You’re also right that client instructions do not justify a rule breach. It’s up to the lawyer to push back or refuse to accept instructions if they’re inconsistent with ethical obligations. It wouldn’t be a defence to say ‘but my client told me to!’ If there was a breach of any of the rules.
There’s also a really high bar for referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal, which is the only authority that can suspend or strike off a lawyer.
I’m aware of at least one person lodging a complaint with the Law Society about this letter. The rules of natural justice, and the way the Society applies those, means you can’t make an anonymous complaint otherwise I would. In my view, which again is not legal advice, threatening healthcare workers with ‘legal action’ for any perceived breach in prescribing or providing care is arguably delineating the line between professional consequences and court action. Any allegation of exceeding authority for those areas could only be dealt with by the HDC or a regulatory authority under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (I.e Nursing Council, Medical Council etc).
Is there some court involvement at some stages in these processes? Sure. The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal is court-like. The HDC can refer cases to the HPDT or the Human Rights Review Tribunal. There are some appeal rights to the High Court. But threatening a healthcare worker with ‘legal action’ for possible breaches of their scope of practice, is misleading when the only bodies that can consider those breaches can be guided by complaints from laypeople, healthcare consumers or concerned members of the public, but prosecute according to very specific guidelines (so it’s not up to the individual to prosecute or commence legal action in those jurisdictions). Any private court action could be barred by ACC legislation (if the allegation is a treatment injury), and any other cause of action would be novel so untested. I’m just bewildered by what this threatened legal action would even look like.
Thank you for this David. Personally, I'm just home from an intensive two day hui and training course in trans health, where I facilitated workshops and dialogue from healthcare professionals working in trans health. We talked about best practice, we shared clinical skills, we got to connect in the face of all this crap, and our security guard didn't have to deal with anything all day. It is really important to note that yes, some health professionals are scared and put off, but a bigger group are galvanised and this bogus legal interpretation is only making them want to do this healthcare more.
Really glad to hear of this kind of work and training going ahead, it’s so important! Thanks for all you do :)
Tautoko, Scout
I’m so proud of you, David. For your stand on this issue and so many others. Every time I hear or see the name Bob McCroskie I want to puke. “Family First” my ass! We do have hope in Aotearoa, though. I’ve been studying Te Reo Māori for over a year at Te Whare Wananga O Awanuiārangi in Whakatāne at the ripe old age of 74 and the strong youth I see coming through the ranks are an inspiration! For my aromatawai tuatahi this term my Tangata Rongonui (famous person) my speech is about is none other than Eru Ruanui Tia Kapa-Kingi who bravely led the recent Hikoi to Wellington and who is actively fighting against David Seymour’s Bill. He also spoke so eloquently and affectionately at a gathering of our Rainbow folk “takatāpui ki Aotearoa” in Auckland last weekend affirming them all of his support and understanding in the struggle with Brian Tamaki and his thugs. Eru is one of these intelligent and knowledgeable young leaders we can be proud of. A law graduate and fluent in Te Reo, he’s a force to be reckoned with. Kia Kaha, Kia māia, Kia manawanui!
Bob McCroskie is an actual idiot. I don’t know how he manages to dress himself most days.
Thank you for continuing to shine a light on things like this! Bullies hate it when their intimidation tactics are exposed. Thank you for always standing up for trans youth 💖
Fuckin' always. Always.
Thank you for taking the time to cover this David, and to everyone in the comments section too.
While I would never dream of changing our daughter’s trans-ness (is that a word?), or hope that she was cisgender - and just currently confused?.. - in some vague desire to avoid complication, in all
honesty I do sometimes find myself wishing we could have an easier, safer path where she has a better shot at a life less tortured by these absolute spanners? And then I remind myself there are plenty of people who aren’t completely backwards about this and continue raising our delightful, challenging, maddening, adorable girl.x
Arohanui, Jess & 💖daughter💖
This is just so wrong. Why can’t we just let trans people live their lives? Whom are they hurting by being themselves? No one. So why does it have to be this big issue? Just let them be.
Because they've committed the crime of being seen and thus making bigots uncomfortable. There's nothing more offensive to a bigot than making them uncomfortable.
And these people imagine themselves as the new aristocracy, and they need a permanent underclass who are forced to abide by their decrees.
Worryingly the new Minister of Health, Simeon Brown, is a religious extremist who would probably be fully supportive of these threats.
Yeah, it worries me having him as the minister of health too...for many reasons.
As a person of faith - can I politely ask that you not assume what a person of faith's view on a subject is unless they disclose it. I have no idea what Simeon Brown's position is but he hasn't indicated anything as far as I'm aware to say that he's not fully supportive of these treats.
He is absolutely open about his faith, he is part of a Baptist church and his views, which are extremely conservative. He has opposed marriage equality, abortions, safe zones around abortion clinics, trans rights, and even harm minimisation measures like drug checking. He sat through the submissions od survivors and health professions speaking about the harm of conversion practices, and still voted against banning these traumatising practices. These are all health issues which he responds to on the basis of conservative faith views, not scientific evidence, medical expertise, or a valuing of human dignity and justice.
I know what you’re saying but we do know that Minister Brown religious conservatism does influence his political views, eg his views on abortion and conversion therapy
It’s hilarious to imagine him be supportive of anyone transgender. I’d love someone to ask him about this.
Steven Franks told me that I shouldn't work with male prisoners (via the Howard League, who tutor in prisons) because I would be raped by them when they got out. He seemed to think this was a reasonable piece of advice. He is one of the few people I've met who genuinely make my skin crawl
So, so gross.
I have been disappointed for sometime with a couple of panelists getting airtime on Wallace Chatmans RNZ show. More so now reading the above. Providing balance is no excuse for minority bigots.
I’m very glad that Health NZ are standing behind their workers and reacting promptly and strongly to this horseshit
Funny (not really funny) how Franks accuses others of acting like the rules don't apply, while blatantly ignoring the rules that he should be following himself.
It seems to be something the conservative right all seem to have in common - a fundamental lack of self-awareness, leading to hypocrisy that is really quite remarkable. They never ever ever seem to engage in self-reflection.
Self-reflection: too scary.
As you, and others below have noted, writing a letter threatening that 'one day you'll be in trouble' does seem to breach various rules of the Code of Conduct, and at a the very least would justify a complaint to the Law Society (and it's worth noting that the NZLS has its own rules around diversity and gender equality). https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/diversity-and-inclusion/
The NZ law society think it's OK for lawyers to harass dead children's families, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn't breach their code of conduct.
Bizarre how libertarians who supposedly believe in individual freedoms are trying to police and regulate other people's lives and genitals.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/126828523/formal-complaint-against-antivax-lawyer-lodged-with-the-law-society
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawyers-complaints-service/decisions/new-zealand-lawyers-and-conveyancers-disciplinary-tribunal/disciplinary-tribunal-strikes-out-charge-against-sue-grey/
As least she has seen disciplined here ..but for another quite different matterhttps://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawyers-complaints-service/decisions/standards-committee-decisions/2024/refusing-to-comply-with-judges-order-is-unsatisfactory-conduct/
sorry...typo...been disciplined.