Month: February 2018

New proposed varieties of declarations of inconsistency under NZBORA

Today Cabinet agreed in principle to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to provide a statutory basis for courts to make declarations of inconsistency.  The proposals also include ensuring Parliament then considers any declaration and the piece of impugned legislation.

As we wait to see how much ink (or other fluids) will be spilled by New Zealand’s constitutional law nerds over this development the text of one of the proposed sections has already leaked.

Much of the legislative detail is yet to be worked out but a new s 27B will set out the types of declarations made.  The proposed section is s 27B:

27B Court may make declaration

A court may make one or more of the following declarations if satisfied that sufficient grounds exist for doing so:

(a) a specified legislative provision is inconsistent with one or more rights affirmed in this statute;

(b) a specified legislative provision passes the smell test, just;

(c) I never liked this legislative provision and at last I get the chance to kick it in the teeth;

(d)  this legislative provision is probably fine but best to say it’s inconsistent because  the UN is going to give us stick if we don’t;

(e) fine, fine, this one is inconsistent too.  They’re all bloody inconsistent!  Are you happy now?

 

Famous novels as written by lawyers

  1. Pride and Without Prejudice
  2. Great Expectation Damages
  3. To Cause Bodily Injury That Is Known To be Likely To Cause Death, While Reckless As To Whether Death Ensues To a Mockingbird
  4. Murder on the Orient Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius
  5. The Grapes of Wrotham Park Damages
  6. Harry Potter and the Interlocutory Order of the Phoenix
  7. The Anton Pillers of the Earth
  8. May It Please the Court, It’s Me Margaret
  9. Mocking J
  10. Of Mice and Mens Rea

Job vacancy – Enforcement Officer, New Zealand Law Style Guide

A position has recently become available in the NZ Law Style Guide Enforcement Division.  The Division is seeking a self-motivated lawyer to join its team as an Enforcement Officer.  The Division is responsible for ensuring uniform use of the Style Guide throughout the New Zealand legal community.  Those individuals and organisations who refuse to follow the Style Guide sometimes need “persuading” that compliance is in their best interests and reminding that it would be a pity if anything were to happen to their families.

Work with the Enforcement Division will see frequent contact with various uppity specialist Tribunal and Authority members who don’t seem to realise that they can’t cite sources in their decisions however they damn well please.  There is also an education outreach component involving work with students of the six NZ universities that offer an LLB course.

Specific requirements for this position:

  • A mark lower than 60% in your university’s Legal Ethics paper.
  • Deep personal hatred of italicised Latin terms.
  • An equivocal character reference from a university lecturer.

Preference will be given to applicants whose souls were permanently disfigured in a large corporate law firm.

Applications close 18 March 2018.

Template statement for law firms in light of the Russell McVeagh revelations

The partners of ((law firm name)) welcome the opportunity[1] to address allegations of inappropriate conduct[2] towards junior members of staff.

The story has developed.[3] It is clear that the problems identified do not reside within one small corner of the legal profession.[4]

When the firm was alerted to this incident at the time we undertook a full investigation into the allegations.[5] That resulted in us taking swift and decisive action.[6] ((Law firm name)) prides itself on its supportive and empowering culture.[7]

((Law firm name)) is dedicated to doing everything that we can to make our offices a safe and supportive place to work.[8] Like Russell McVeagh and many other major firms we also are working on a “transition to work” programme for our graduate hires.[9]

We have been asked by the women involved to respect their privacy so, therefore, we will not be commenting further.[10]

——

[1] Our hand has been forced because Newsroom named us too.

[2] We can’t bring ourselves to call it sexual harassment because then we’d have to admit there is a real problem.

[3] This was good for us when it was just Russell McVeagh.

[4] We are going to minimise our conduct by saying that it happens everywhere.

[5] Allegations which were consistent with what everybody already knew about the perpetrator but which we had to pretend were a surprise.

[6] C:/Documents/Cover-up/Non-disclosure agreement.docx

[7] But everyone here can name the male partners that still work here and the female juniors that don’t.

[8] We had years to get our house in order but did nothing, so anything we do now is too little, too late.

[9] As if the cause of the problem in this case was that our graduates didn’t know how to work the photocopier instead of a male partner abusing his position.

[10] We are happy that at last there is a step we can take to protect their careers and sense of self-worth that is also very convenient for us.