For context, Mike Heron was commissioned to conduct the review "against a backdrop of a breakdown in the relationship between the President and the then Chief Executive of the Law Society".
Rewind to June when chief executive Joanna Simon resigned. Concerns were raised about then-president Jacque Lethbridge, who strongly denied the unspecified allegations.
Lethbridge issued a statement to the Herald, saying: "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."
Last week's Law Society statement confirmed that something - exactly what, who knows - happened between the pair. It also revealed Lethbridge resigned as president.
Law Society vice president David Campbell said Heron reported that on balance, considering all the statements and submissions received, Lethbridge behaved in a manner which some employees experienced as aggressive and irrational.
"While Mr Heron found that the President was genuinely well motivated and did not intend the consequences that occurred, the behaviour was inappropriate and described as unreasonable for a person in the position of President."
In a public statement, Lethbridge said: "I am reflecting on how my approach and communication style – which is without doubt direct and exacting – has been the experience of some in that environment."
Irrespective of the statement's "I'm sorry you feel that way" nature, it's been amazing to see comments of this kind made by a lawyer associated with the legal regulatory and representative body.
And then there are Campbell's comments.
It is hard not to have a knee-jerk reaction at Campbell's use (as a proxy for Heron) of 'irrational' as a form of stereotyping towards women, notwithstanding the severity of the undisclosed behaviour in question. But perhaps I'm clouded by my hysterical female disposition.
Finally, some comments of substance and accountability, I thought, as my jaw dropped realising that I seldom - if ever - a) get lawyers to go on the record when discussing the Law Society or b) see comments of lawyers discussing the Law Society in other media outlets.
Even when reporting generally, I find it difficult to engage lawyers. Perhaps it's their aversion to risk, or that New Zealand is a small pond - I'm not sure. This lockdown of sorts could also be the result of the profession having to weather various controversies in recent years.
It could be the state of journalism, too, to reference Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson's comments with regard to the new public media entity.
"The reality is we want TVNZ to work in tandem with us - and they're doing that - because New Zealand has changed. We have no longer a trust in national media - no longer is there a trust in what's happening at a national media level," Jackson said in Parliament in late September.
He later told RNZ: "I didn't mean to say ... or cast aspersions in terms of TVNZ or RNZ, they still are a trusted medium. But all our surveys have told us that the public are losing faith with the media."
Digressions aside, these types of comments are what I'd like to see from the legal profession. The judiciary is limited - which is understandable given the principles of independence and impartiality.
In the Law Society's defence, it is limited in what it can say in relation to complaints thanks to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, which may be subject to change.
Meanwhile, the Aotearoa Legal Workers' Union is filling this void, where their banger statements and spokespeople calling on firms, people, society, and the world to change are incredibly refreshing.
I am hopeful that the Law Society's separate review into the society's regulatory and representative functions means the Law Society speaks more openly about processes and issues facing the profession. Imagine if the Law Society could even go so far as to question the judiciary or government?
Fewer barriers lead to fewer carpets accruing dust, in my view. It would also mean more injustices relating to the profession, the justice system, or society writ large could come to light as a consequence.
