The ASC found that they had “used a legal process for an improper purpose”, censured them and fined them.
I have no doubt that the decision to censure them was related to the policy position of their clients.
They appealed to to Legal Complaints Review Officer, who overturned the decision. He noted:
Except to woke activists who think certain topics are beyond debate.
Such a good ruling from the LCRO.
The members of the Area Standards Committee should be ashamed they weaponised the law so badly in their decision. Well it was a split decision, so the majority members anyway.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
They appealed to to Legal Complaints Review Officer, who overturned the decision. He noted:
The very purpose of a lawyer or firm sending a letter on behalf of a client is, in many if not most instances, to endeavour to lend weight to whatever concern, position or purpose the client seeks to express or advance. That is what lawyers do. This is why a client comes to its lawyer and says, “we need a lawyer’s letter about this”. This cannot conceivably be improper in principle.
Except to woke activists who think certain topics are beyond debate.
Advocacy organisations and lobby groups seek to put pressure on those holding opposing views and/or engaging in practices they consider objectionable in every walk of life all the time. Numerous, obvious examples solely in the health care field include abortion, assisted dying, recreational drug use, fluoridation, vaccination, blood transfusion and so on. Gender-related health care services are in no special category. Examples outside the health care sector are similarly legion.
Such a good ruling from the LCRO.
To exert pressure on a health care provider to refrain from undertaking medical procedures that a relevant interest group objects to, on whatever grounds, is legitimate provided the means of doing so is lawful. A lawyer writing a letter on behalf of a lobbyist client expressing the client’s views on a policy issue and on potential future legal developments in the field and asserted legal risks associated with it is a lawful activity.
The Committee’s finding that the applicants’ purpose in doing so was not proper, in terms of the first limb of r 2.3, cannot stand.
The members of the Area Standards Committee should be ashamed they weaponised the law so badly in their decision. Well it was a split decision, so the majority members anyway.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
1 comment:
Can’t you read, David? They weren’t censured for being lawyers. This is not America. They were censured for doing something that warranted being censured.
Is this another hangover from when Curia threw its toys after being found not following professional standards? This country used to have rule of law, and some institutions are brave enough to keep on applying penalties for rule-breakers. It’s a good thing, obviously.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.