The Letter

The letter sent by Stephen Franks on February 14, 2025

Hi,

Quite a few readers have asked to see a copy of the original letter Stephen Franks of Franks Ogilvie law sent out to various New Zealand health practitioners.

So, here is a copy.

I am not going to do a fact check here, but would advise you keep these emojis in mind as you read this letter:

I don’t mean to make light of this letter — it’s intimidatory, inaccurate and disgusting — but honestly, those emojis sum up the letter, Franks Ogilvie law, and Stephen Franks (who signed it).

As a Webworm commenter noted in today’s main Webworm post:

“The thing that gets me is one time when I worked at parliament, I saw Stephen 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.”

David.

---

NOTICE OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE TO LIABILITY FOR "GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE

Dear [recipient’s name],

1. We have been instructed to write to you by Inflection Point New Zealand. Our client association seeks to limit the harm to New Zealanders, especially minors, from gender-related indoctrination and medicalisation. We write to give fair warning that our client intends to assist claimants in possible future litigation against health professionals who have been involved in "gender-affirming care" performed negligently or in disregard of their rights as healthcare consumers.

General warning

2. Our clients have identified you to us as one of the people who should get this notice because they understand that you practice or have practiced in ways that could be encompassed within the general description of gender-affirming healthcare. If that is not correct, feel free to disregard this letter.

3. The notice and warning in this letter is generic, not prompted by particular attention to your practice, and so far neither this firm nor our clients have attempted to assess the prospects of litigation by any particular victim of malpractice in gender affirming childcare. Nevertheless, having considered the applicable law, and the historical pattern of events as medical scandals have unfolded, we have advised our client that there is a strong likelihood that some practices, and some practitioners in the gender dysphoria field will be found liable in respect of harm caused by them.

4. Our clients believes that it is clear now that some common practices affecting those with gender-dysphoria, including the prescription of puberty blockers and masculinising/feminising hormone therapy, and premature irreversible surgery are contrary to the professional and ethical standards required of health professionals. We consider that they may also breach legal duties. They may violate patients' rights to reasonable standards of care, and rights to enough information to enable informed consent.

5. That is before considering:

a) whether the youth and distress of the patients allows them to evaluate pertinent information rationally, and

b) the effect of either excluding parents from the process, or drawing them in with false assurances and unwarranted confidence in diagnosis and alleged benefits of treatment.

6. You will be aware of the United Kingdom's Cass Report, and the Ministry of Health's evidence brief on the use of puberty blockers for gender-dysphoric adolescents. Our clients consider that they establish that there is no adequate evidence base to justify those treatments. The treatments are likely to do more harm than good. In our opinion practitioners of gender-related healthcare now have no reasonable excuse for failing to know of the lack of evidence. Without a sound evidentiary base for considering that the benefits of such treatments outweigh the risks and costs, irreversible harm to patients becomes unconscionable.

Victims as plaintiffs

7. Our clients give notice that they intend to support de-transitioners who realise they should never have been led into dangerous treatments for their alleged gender-dysphoria and/or who realise they never had the opportunity to give properly informed consent. That support is expected to include advice, and fund-raising to ensure that the huge costs of litigation do not prevent victims from seeking justice and compensation where possible.

8. You may be aware of such litigation overseas by adult de-transitioners against the medical professionals who sent them as teenagers down harmful medical pathways. It seems to be emerging that many of the professionals had little more than gender theory and ideological group-think to justify their facilitation of a 'dysphoria' social contagion.

9. You may think that liability in tort for breaching patients' rights would be precluded by the ACC statutory bar. That bar is not absolute. It does not preclude exemplary damages where a defendant is wilfully reckless. As the evidence mounts that gender-affirming healthcare, such as the prescription of puberty blockers for minors, is ineffective and in fact likely to be harmful, the threshold for exemplary damages is increasingly likely to be met in relation to such treatments.

10. You will be familiar with your duties to your patients under the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights ("the Code"). Our clients expect that some de-transitioners will seek remedies under the Code.

Next steps

11. Our clients intend to develop a database to help the victims in due course. It may include the results of monitoring the practices of individuals within your field as far as they can from publicly available information and accounts from patients and their families who have been drawn into gender affirming care treatments. The clients also intend to maintain a practical evidence base of what professionals in your area of practice in New Zealand should know about gender-affirming care. Knowing that certain practices do not have a sound evidential base, but continuing them regardless, may exacerbate culpability.

12. On our clients' instructions, similar letters will go to other healthcare professionals who risk liability for gender-affirming healthcare. We are also instructed to ensure the professional indemnity insurers for New Zealand health practitioners are alerted to their possible exposures.

13. You should know better than anyone else at this time if you have been involved in gender affirming care practices or treatments that will be contentious if a de-transitioner alleges negligence or recklessness about the risks to them, or complains of a breach of a code or of relevant professional standards. A person who may become a party to a legal proceeding must take all reasonable steps to preserve documents that are, or are reasonably likely to be, discoverable in the proceeding. That obligation arises as soon as a proceeding is reasonably contemplated. We suggest that if you have had gender dysphoric patients, especially those that were minors at the time of treatment, it could be in your interests as well as those of a complainant for you to be able to produce all notes and information that could be relevant to the issues that would arise if you become a defendant.

14. Do not feel obliged to reply to this preliminary warning, though our client would like to know if you decide to cease involvement in gender affirming care, or otherwise consider that your practice is unlikely to expose you to the risks explained.

Yours faithfully
FRANKS OGILVIE

[Stephen Franks signature]

Stephen Franks
Principal
stephen.franks@franksogilvie.co.nz

---