Posts by Andrew Geddis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Standing together, in reply to Russell Brown,
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.
-
Hard News: Standing together, in reply to Bart Janssen,
There simply is no “code of ethics” for scientists that has any strength other than in the individual morality of the scientists themselves. I am moral because I am moral not because of any “code”.
Oh, really? And so how do you explain all those ethics panels at my University? They are there to do much more than justto check that no laws are being broken in the research - and without their say-so, research doesn't get done irrespective of the "morality of the scientists themselves".
-
A parallel argument could be made in my profession that scientists should be allowed to research anything without regard to society or safety.
No it couldn't. I didn't say "lawyers can do anything to advance the interests of anyone". I said that lawyers will use the tools that the law gives, within the bounds of legality and professional ethics, to advance the interests of their clients. Just as scientists will use the tools of their trade, within the bounds of legality and subject to the dictates of whatever ethical permission their institution requires of them, to research stuff.
Could Mai Chen decline a distasteful job?
Her firm could refuse to represent someone, yes. But why would she refuse to represent the Trust Board? And why would she refuse to send a letter to someone whom the Trust Board thinks has falsely accused it of something? She is, after all, running a business! And like I said - that business will sometimes mean you work for the "good" guys, and sometimes for the "bad" ones.
Can I just note the irony at Mai Chen being quite a high profile media commentator on legal and constitutional issues, she's happily using her tool box (and let's not be naive here) to try and beat down uppity journalists from asking inconvenient questions of her clients.
Not sure there is an "irony" here at all. In one role, she's a commentator. In the other, she's plying a trade. Those are quite different things (although I do suspect that she trades off the former when drumming up business to be the latter). And how do we know she was "happy" about sending the letter? For all we know, she agrees that NZ's defamation laws are overly strict and ought to be reformed … but in the meantime, the law isn't what she thinks it ought to be!
Finally, not quite sure why it's the law firm that's getting blasted here for doing something that its client asked it to. Do we want to live in a world in which your legal rights are determined by the personal moral scruples of whomsoever happens to be your lawyer at that time?
-
Hard News: Standing together, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
It is hard to reconcile the Mai Chen fighting for the beleaguered underdog Phillipstown School and the Mai Chen writing to shut down a dissenting voice on behalf of a more powerful client....
No. It's not.
The law is a tool box, and a lawyer uses the tool that is needed to get the relevant job done. He or she doesn't ask "is this a good job" - they just do what is asked of them (within the confines of legality and professional ethics, of course).
So if you though Mai Chen (or, rather, her firm) was a saint for getting a win for Philipstown, then you're as much a fool as if you damn her (or, rather, her firm) for writing the letter. It's a question of professional competence, not ethical choice.
(I do stand to be corrected on one point, but. If it turns out Chen & Palmer waived (or discounted) their fees for Philipstown, then that would be a noble act worthy of praise. Otherwise, it's just a job.)
-
Hard News: To be expected, in reply to Russell Brown,
I went for “wedding guest” in the original post, but yeah.
Given the branding of the political party involved, it would be a red wedding. And I'm not over that yet.
But call Peters what you want (and there's many things I'd like to) his centrality to any hopes to change the Government is a big difference to 1999 - and a big problem for "the left".
-
Hard News: To be expected, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,
But National doesn’t have a large potential coalition partner who just asked them to campaign with them so I used the Conservatives as an analogy.
Which makes the analogy a not very good one. Asking John Key "what do you plan to do about Colin Craig" is not the same as asking David Cunliffe "what is your response to the Green's proposal to work together". The idea that Labour could spend the next four months peddling the line "we haven’t made any decisions either way yet" is a bit silly.
As for suggestions that Labour should do what it did in 1999 and signal clearly that it and the Greens will be cohabitors in Government (as it did with the Alliance back then), there's one big difference. Winston Peters.
In 1999, a majority Labour-Alliance result was highly achievable (and the best result for both parties). In 2014, does anyone think a Labour-Green majority is possible (even if you add in Mana ... and maybe even the Maori Party)? No - odds are it's going to need Winston to get over the line. And then what odds that he'll be happy to be a spare wheel on a formal Labour-Greens Government?
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to Tom Semmens,
To me, they have all the believability and all the sincerity of a Rebekah Brooks solemnly promising she won’t do it again.
I for one happen to believe that Rebekah Brooks will never be involved in phone hacking again ... .
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
“Our poll shows National is (highly) likely to have 56 to 58 MPs.”
Not hard.
But to be fully "accurate" it would have to be something like "our poll shows National is (highly) likely to have 56 to 58 MPs, Labour is (highly) likely to have X to X+2, the Greens are likely to have Y to Y+2, NZ First is about equally likely to have either no MPs or Z MPs ... and if it has no MPs, then National, Labour and the Greens will get some more because of the wasted vote ... while the Maori Party might create a parliamentary overhang again or might only win the one seat, and ACT might get an MP or might not depending on Epsom ... and goodness knows what National is planning for Colin Craig, which could give him N to N+1 seats or none at all."
Yep. That's a story they'll want to run.
-
Hard News: Gower Speaks, in reply to Steve Curtis,
So John Key and National are 'masking' their donations by using restaurants and other events, where participants are making donations or paying over the top for services.
No. They aren't doing any such thing. I explained the whole thing here: http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/one-of-these-things-actually-isnt-quite-like-the-other
-
Can you shed any light on my questions above? Because Patrick doesn’t seem inclined to.
Sorry - honestly can't remember all the details (it was probably 10 days ago I was asked). I do recall that the Cunliffe question did use the phrase "worthy of a PM", because I thought it odd and difficult to answer, but not whether "secret trust" was included in it. I think it came after the whole business of ranking Key/Cunliffe on honesty, etc (there also were questions about understanding the economy and so on), but couldn't swear to that on a bible.