"I participated in and fully supported the full board's decision to initiate a broad-based review of the NZLS working culture being undertaken by Mike Heron QC, which will be addressing all concerns including those raised directly by me. I look forward to fully participating in it."
She said her platform had been one of fairness and transparency.
"I strongly believe the reputation of our profession and our organisation can only be enhanced and benefit from a clear, open and fair approach."
Law Society board vice president David Campbell said until the review is complete it could not comment any further.
These concerns are taken seriously by the board and the Law Society's priority is the wellbeing of its staff, Campbell said.
"It is important that New Zealanders have trust and confidence in the Law Society as the regulator of the profession as well as an advocate for the legal profession."
While the Law Society is legally prohibited from commenting on complaints pursuant to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, the same can't be said for its internal problems relating to Jacque Lethbridge and others.
Confidentiality - the devil in sheep's clothing
On an existential level it irks me that human resources or communications departments bark on about confidentiality and natural justice while openly saying they're "transparent". It's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.
My view of "people and culture specialists" or "communications" isn't personal - I had the best relationships with HR while doing communications for Simpson Grierson many moons ago, for example.
I take issue with the optics, and the impact of those optics.
If I had a dollar for every official statement regarding a complaint that couldn't be answered due to protecting the privacy of those involved - I'd be able to afford smoked salmon and Costello blue cheese at full price.
Yes, it's important to follow due process and promote natural justice. But often in situations involving complaints it's victims who are swallowed and spat out.
Media statements around "protecting" confidentiality add insult to injury as businesses inadvertently profit by not recognising the system that allowed something allegedly dubious - whatever it was - to happen. Reputation remains intact.
There's also a conflict of interest here as human resources are traditionally designed to protect a business' interest. Call it what you like but more often than not human resources often fails to effectively resource the humans it pledges to protect.
Confidentiality either internally or externally is a guideline and not a right in a legislative or code of ethics sense.
Compare the bar to confidentiality to say client privilege or patient privilege, for example.
In a practical sense, in he said/she said situations, I've been exposed to far too many incidents where in the case of bullying or harassment, an accused is often given a copy of a complaint, which arguably puts the complainant and those mentioned in a very vulnerable position.
I could even go so far as saying it puts the health and safety of complaint-makers and those mentioned in the complaint at risk. Should complaints include redactions? Absolutely.
A cynical view could argue that secrecy breeds corruption, or incompetence at the very least. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, or so the saying goes.
I'm of the view that confidentiality is a sweeping, disingenuous, and ambiguous smokescreen that's used as a vehicle to distance corporates from accountability and transparency.
Meanwhile, last year the Law Society introduced new rules around mandatory reporting by lawyers in cases of bullying and harassment.
Additionally, the Law Society is currently in the throes of an independent review.
The review aims to look at reforming the complaints system - which has been extensively criticised for its time delays and lack of transparency - and determining whether the Society can sufficiently act as a regulatory and representative body at the same time.
It's all fine and well and I'm hopeful of the outcome.
But few seem to be addressing the elephant in the room.
If it's decided the regulator should be independent of the professional membership, would the Ministry of Justice have to step in?
My thoughts and prayers go out to new Justice Minister Kiri Allan, if that's the case.
