Hard News: Standing together
83 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Yet people feel quite entitled to talk down their noses about a profession that has both a statutory obligation to the law and to their clients, as well as a professional obligation to same. How's that work? What makes y'all so high and mighty and moral that you get to preach about lawyers?
You ever faced the serious prospect of being financially and professionally destroyed, about a year out of journalism school, because you did you job? I have, so excuse me if I don't give the proverbial rodent's rectum about the hurt fee-fees of anyone at ChenPalmer or libel mills like Carter Ruck. They're just "doing their job"? Fine - they can harden the fuck up and stop waiting for the thank you cards from a profession that has plenty of experience of litigious intimidation.
-
NBH, in reply to
There simply is no "code of ethics" for scientists that has any strength other than in the individual morality of the scientists themselves
Um, I don't think that's true. Even if you don't belong to any professional scientific associations or societies that have codes for conduct or similar criteria for being members in good standing (and I'm pretty sure almost all will), you're subject to the definitions and standards of ethical practice associated with your employer. If you conduct research with human subjects without obtaining human ethics committee approval, falsify data, or engage in plagiarism, then although there's a good chance you haven't broken any law you will be subject to professional sanctions up to and including effectively not being able to practise as a scientist ever again.
-
You can believe in the cab rank rule for barristers but think that solicitors have different obligations, that’s not impossible.
Apart from anything else, barristers operate in an adversarial environment with pretty direct oversight by an impartial judge. Solicitors don’t in general.
[Not that we have a split profession but you know what I mean.]
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Yet people feel quite entitled to talk down their noses about a profession that has both a statutory obligation to the law and to their clients, as well as a professional obligation to same. How’s that work? What makes y’all so high and mighty and moral that you get to preach about lawyers?
I’d be interested to know exactly what the advice to the KRNT board was in both the cases we’re discussing here, because the upshot of both was unhappy for the client.
The defamation action backfired because tangatawhenua.com didn’t cave, and the claims and the letter are there for anyone to read. At the least, the damage is reputational. I’m not sure who the website went to for advice, but in the end it’s pretty clear that the last thing the trust board wanted was to endure discovery in a defamation case against a well-liked small publisher.
And the injunction against Native Affairs was really disastrous, in that it merely served up affidavits that Native Affairs was able to use to bolster its reports.
So there are those things to consider.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Principled polity…
As usual Ian, you show yourself to be a man of Principal (your father was a Headmaster?) -
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
So there are those things to consider.
Yes. And people don't make decisions about what legal steps to pursue in a vacuum - their advisors ought to be spelling out the risks involved in any particular course of action.
It is, of course, not beyond the bounds of possibility that some advisors' advice downplays the potential reputational or other harm of taking action because there's not much money to be made out of "just ignore it - trying to do anything will only make the situation worse" (plus, if the advice is "do nothing", what do you need a lawyer for?). Not saying that this is what happened in this case, rather pointing out that there's a perhaps unconscious bias at work in favour of telling clients "here's all the great things that we can do to help you out!" , even if they aren't such a good idea down the road.
-
Sense of Entitlement™
Now available to White Middle Class Maori.
Whether its a Kappa Haka or a Cuppa Tea.
Your bread's buttered both sides after Dinner with Key.
You can have your cake and eat it and you can eat your neighbours too*.
And come up smelling Rose's, albeit Rose's old shoe.*Their cake that is....
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
...your father was a Headmaster?
Gold miner, tank driver,
post-cutter, wool-classer,
gardener, thinker,
and gentle man.... -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
So there are those things to consider.
True and on Native affairs last night , this press release received ( which I cant find anywhere else) and read by Mihingarangi Forbes was given by Te Kotahitanga o Mataatua Tauranga Moana
It's about 15 secs in if anyone is interested. -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Gold miner,
Mine?
A General Parts Sales Manager for a Ford main dealership in the UK. Started working for them when he was 14, was given time off to fight in WW2 then back to the firm till the day he was replaced by a computer at the age of 62. They gave him a gold plated watch.
Yours sounds so much more fun,
But we digress… -
Bart Janssen, in reply to
And so how do you explain all those ethics panels at my University?
You should check, but I'm pretty sure their power comes directly from the law. There simply is no code of ethics than has power other than a warm fuzzy feeling. It may be called an ethics committee but what it is actually doing is checking that experiments fit within the legal requirements for harm to animals and humans.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
subject to professional sanctions
Ok look you are kind of right but also not. Yes my employer can place restrictions on my behaviour but they only have legal bearing in so much as I can have my employment terminated (subject to labour laws).
Yes my peers can shun me from the journals and choose not to employ me but they cannot prevent anyone from choosing to employ me as a scientist.
And yes the ethics committee can judge whether my planned experiments meet the ethical standards but those standards are either enshrined in the law of the land or in my employers code of conduct and not within some ethical code for scientists.
All that is quite different from the legal or medical profession. In both those cases the professional society has legally enshrined powers to prevent the practice of law (or medicine) by someone they deem to have broken their code of ethics. It is a very special power given to those professions and technically only jobs with such societies should be called professions. But the word has changed it's meaning.
Which is all very interesting but the reality is suggesting that personal morality has no role in law because of the professional code is both daft and something that lawyers insist is important.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
True and on Native affairs last night , this press release received ( which I cant find anywhere else) and read by Mihingarangi Forbes was given by Te Kotahitanga o Mataatua Tauranga Moana
It’s about 15 secs in if anyone is interested.That was interesting. If true, the hui was definitely not as satisfying for everyone as the statements at the press conference suggested.
-
Gareth Ward, in reply to
their advisors ought to be spelling out the risks involved in any particular course of action.
And those advisors are often (usually?) the ones suggesting the course of action, so I find the standard "lawyers just execute their client's requests as per their obligation" line a little trite.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
“lawyers just execute their client's requests as per their obligation” line a little trite.
Hey, whilst lawyers in the past have cost me dearly and more recently been very helpful, I put them in similar category to Real Estate agents. We need them on occasion and we trust that they advise us in our best interest . We can then take an option out of those choices and in reality it is then the client that has the right to choose which a direction to take. I can imagine that whoever gave the directive has the sense of entitlement that we are witnessing and it may be one person or a board or whoever, that influences the outcome.
Point being, the letter would have been a directive and as much as lawyers have cost me in the past and with bad information, I'll still employ one for matters of need. I can't represent myself. The Lawyer was doing their job. Would you want them to be polite? They don't get their reputations for being polite unfortunately. As they say "the nice ones come last" and in their position, they'd lose. -
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
You should check, but I’m pretty sure their power comes directly from the law.
That's just simply not true. Otherwise they would be called "legal panels". And why exactly do I need to check - I thought you were the scientist who should have some general idea about the systems within which he works?
But anyway - an example. No-one in any NZ academic institution or other research facility will ever be allowed to replicate the Milgram experiment. It would never get ethical approval, full stop. However, there is absolutely no legal issue involved with it … if some Joe Public wanted to run it as a joke on his friends, no legal liability would result from convincing them they were actually electocuting some subject to the point of death. Which proves that "lawful" and "ethical" are not the same thing in the field of science.
As for your claims that the ethical codes imposed on you by your employer and the scientific community generally don't "really" constrain you personally … good luck being an "independent scientist" without any access to research funding or institutional support or publishing. That would be the functional equivalent of a "legal advisor" who is not a "lawyer" - which is a thing, you know.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
If you conduct research with human subjects without obtaining human ethics committee approval, falsify data, or engage in plagiarism, then although there’s a good chance you haven’t broken any law you will be subject to professional sanctions up to and including effectively not being able to practise as a scientist ever again.
CoughAndrewWakefieldCough
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
replicate the Milgram experiment
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Which is all very interesting but the reality is suggesting that personal morality has no role in law because of the professional code is both daft and something that lawyers insist is important.
I work in law, and on many occasions I have been in a position where there are multiple possible courses of action available to a client. I am obliged to inform my client of all of the options, but generally I will attempt to emphasise the course of action that I think is in their best interests. The English language being what it is, and basic human psychology being what it is, attempting to provide the options in a completely neutral and balanced manner would be next to impossible.
It would be disingenous to try to argue that it could be possible for the personally unscrupulous or unethical to emphasise a course of action that might financially benefit them more than another, but giving advice that is incorrect (knowingly or not), or omitting an option (even if with good intentions), can come back to bite you hard in the arse.
And as has already been pointed out, I can’t force a client to pick an option I prefer. If they bull-headedly want to pursue a particular course of action, I don’t have a choice but to carry out their instructions to the best of my ability.
However, there does seem to be an assumption here that the lawyers here are the responsible party - the ones in the driving seat. Given that there are many pieces of the jigsaw missing here, I think that's a somewhat hasty and not necessarily fair conclusion.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
You ever faced the serious prospect of being financially and professionally destroyed, about a year out of journalism school, because you did you job?
And paw widdle Cwaigy was picked on by the nasty lawyers because they got his name out of a phone book? Fuck off. You pissed off the lawyers' clients (nice work, by the way, whatever it was you wrote), and that is why the lawyers' toolbox got opened.
Bitching about how nasty lawyers are makes it sound like they just randomly decide to send off a lawyer-gram for the hell of it. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
And paw widdle Cwaigy was picked on by the nasty lawyers because they got his name out of a phone book? Fuck off. You pissed off the lawyers’ clients (nice work, by the way, whatever it was you wrote), and that is why the lawyers’ toolbox got opened.
Get a grip, Matthew. I think the legal profession can survive a little bad feeling. You might care to reflect on how vile being exposed to action from a well-heeled litigant is for a journalist, especially one without an employer to protect them.
I was singled out and threatened with defamation action last year and it was absolutely my opinion that the lawyer who wrote the letters did not do so in a detached and dispassionate fashion. The fact that he bragged about it in a pub didn’t help either.
Fortunately, I was able to rely on the pro bono assistance of a partner of a major law firm, who was great.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
..how nasty lawyers are….
…on the odds of human nature, I’d posit some are, most aren’t.
But I couldn’t possibly comment on a case I know absolutely nothing about,
let alone get all, well, childish about it.
But I’m guessing you aren’t in the law or customer service…
…and that this isn’t your blog post on rudeness in communications… -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
It is, of course, not beyond the bounds of possibility that some advisors’ advice downplays the potential reputational or other harm of taking action because there’s not much money to be made out of “just ignore it – trying to do anything will only make the situation worse”
Not to mention possible hubris on the part of the advisor and/or client, in terms of the "a lawyer-gram on Chen Palmer letterhead ought to scare the pants off'm" effect. A letter from a major firm carries more weight than the same words from Grabbit and Runne of Gore.
-
Observing in court one day, I witnessed a gentleman being prosecuted for breaching a non-contact order by driving down the street his partner/ex-partner lived on, and waving at her.
The defendant's lawyer was putting it to the judge that the defendant should not be punished because he was driving down the road by accident, and was only waving to show there were no hard feelings. He sounded like he really believed it, and that his client was being unfairly picked on.
My opinion was that the defendant was waving to show that he could come by anytime, and the police wouldn't be there.
In this instance, the judge appeared to have a similar opinion to me, and remanded him in custody for the meantime.
It occurred to me that it was the lawyer's job to try to sell that line to the judge as convincingly as possible, to do less would be not doing his job properly. I wondered whether there was some sort of code that lawyers used to judges to say "My client has told me this is his excuse, and I'm trying to sound as convincing as possible, but please don't let him off" and whether using such a code would in effect not be doing the lawyer's best to get their client off, and thus failing as a lawyer. The better the lawyer does their job, the more sleazy they can look.
I also wondered whether since most (all?) judges have been lawyers, the lawyer could make their pitch secure in the knowledge that the judge was smart enough to know that the line was bullshit. There's a lot of twisty thinking down that road though.
Bits of the law look fascinating, other bits make me want to wear rubber gloves and use a long pole before examining closely.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
You might care to reflect on how vile being exposed to action from a well-heeled litigant is for a journalist, especially one without an employer to protect them.
I don't particularly need you to explain to me about being on the wrong end of a massive power imbalance with legal consequences, Russell.
I'm sure some lawyers get a jolly from bullying people and hiding behind "the law" in doing so, but they still have to be instructed by a client before they take action. They don't just pick a victim at random and write a nasty letter, someone tells them to do so.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.