F R O M T H E L AW S O C I E T Y
S eptember 2 0 1 8 · L AW TA L K 9 2 1
From the Law Society For the first time in its 149-year history, the Law Society is bringing an independent, non-lawyer onto its Board. We have already started recruiting for this position. This is an important step for us in changing the way we operate through all levels of our organisation. It reflects our commitment to transparency, openness and diversity of perspectives. To fill this role, we are looking for a person with commercial experience, but also with a strong track record of driving cultural change, diversity and inclusion. To meet the requirements of the Law Society constitution, the position is described as an independent Board observer. The successful applicant will have full speaking rights at each meeting of the Board. Our Board comprises the President and four Vice-Presidents. All positions are elected and the VicePresidents provide their time voluntarily. The new role is a paid one. Our Board provides sound governance at present and represents the profession admirably. At the same time we recognise the benefits of increasing the diversity of inputs and viewpoints into the Law Society. We look forward to the contribution of a new independent voice at our table. This important change comes along with some other developments which have kept the Law Society in the news.
The privacy breach We have been very disappointed with the recent media reporting in relation to the Law Society obtaining an injunction to protect confidential information caused by an inadvertent privacy breach. The statements we released at the time are included on the next page. The Law Society received a complaint through the standard process and, due to a staff autofill error, it was sent to somebody who should never have received it. This was a serious privacy breach caused by a common and genuine mistake. We made nine separate attempts by email, phone and text to contact the recipient of the email. Each was unsuccessful. We were extremely concerned that the information would be more widely shared. The persons named in the information were understandably extremely upset by the breach. We initially sought guidance from the Privacy Commissioner’s Office. Seven days after the breach and having received no response at that time we applied for an interim suppression order to prevent publication of the private and confidential information we had inadvertently 6
released. When a response was received the evening that the application had been filed, it did not allay the Law Society’s concerns. That response was put before the court at the earliest opportunity and prior to the order being made. I want to be crystal clear that the injunction was only ever designed to protect the personal information of those affected by our mistake. We made the mistake, we accepted it, we apologised, we took the steps we believed necessary to protect those who were affected and we have put in place steps to ensure it cannot occur again. The injunction was intended as a shortterm measure until agreement could be reached which set the boundaries around publication in a way which would not disclose any personal and confidential information. Over the next few months there were protracted negotiations with the recipient of the email and a media organisation which had, somehow, become aware of the injunction. I believe the fact that media became involved supports the steps we took to protect those affected by the privacy breach. I appreciate that the headlines painted a very different story but it’s important to me that you hear from the Law Society as to exactly what happened and why.
Access to justice A focus on improving access to justice is a fundamental aspect of the Law Society’s duty to protect the rule of law. Accurate provision of information on the justice system and our courts is essential. This issue of LawTalk takes a look at the state of court reporting in New Zealand. Members of the legal profession and judiciary have some concerns, and these are outlined from page 51.
Creating a just culture On a more positive note, I urge everyone to read the article which begins on page 26. The 15 largest law firms in New Zealand share the initiatives they have underway to build safer, respectful and inclusive cultures. We cannot understate the scale of the challenge, but it’s important to acknowledge the commitment to change and the action that is now underway. I want to acknowledge that commitment and the very real progress that is being made. At the same time we should acknowledge that change cannot occur fast enough. Kathryn Beck President, New Zealand Law Society