Gender-Affirming Letter Backlash
The letter written by Stephen Franks law firm, Franks Ogilvie regarding so-called ‘gender affirming care’ has created a firestorm of criticism and two Law Society and a Police complaint from those reportedly offended by the letter sent by Franks’ firm to general practices and warning of potential legal liability for advice they provide.
>> Latest Jobs on LawFuel Network: SFO, Mediaworks, DuncanCotterill, Bell Gully – See Here
The fact that complaints are made about a law firm or lawyer complying with client instructions on a matter of wide interest is itself bewildering, with complaints coming from an environmental lawyer, Tess Uperton and a hate speech advocate.
In a post on X, Franks remained defiant and emphasised his firm’s right to act on instructions by forwarding the letter.
The letters from my firm that have generated the hysteria reported by @rnz_news set out legal implications in New Zealand of the UK Cass Report that resulted in prompt decisions by numerous overseas authorities, to stop or to restrict puberty blocker drug treatment for minors.
The letters were also informed by a recent New Zealand Ministry of Health evidence brief.
We highlighted risks for health practitioners providing what is called ‘gender affirming care’ if they do not ensure they have an up to date understanding of the evidence on the balance between the benefit and the harm of such treatment.
As lawyers we take seriously our duties to: – Accept work in a field where we profess to be competent to practice (the ‘cab rank rule’); and – To not misinform or misdirect as to the legal basis for the statements we make on behalf of our clients.
It would be unethical for us to withdraw from acting for a client due to threats or criticisms of their views by others.
The hostile attention to this client service is peculiar. The New Zealand Government has been consulting on exactly the issues raised by our correspondence.
In our opinion Te Whatu Ora and/or the Health and Disability Commissioner and/or the Ministry of Health should have written exactly the kind of letter our client instructed us to write.
Stephen Franks
Having outlined the known risks and the poor information supporting previous claims of safety, it is considering restrictions of the kind our client advocates to reduce the risk of irreversible harms.
Our client asked us to research the liability that might accrue from the odd delay in changing practice in New Zealand. We were then asked to write to practitioners in the area because our client believes that some of them have their heads in the sand, refusing to acknowledge the now well established absence of the normally required evidence of net benefit to justify the use of harmful drugs.
The hysterical criticism of this firm seems to confirm our client’s concerns. In our opinion Te Whatu Ora and/or the Health and Disability Commissioner and/or the Ministry of Health should have written exactly the kind of letter our client instructed us to write.
It might have helped to reduce the risk of avoidable and irreversible harm to minors who believe they are gender-dysphoric, accumulating while the New Zealand government decides whether to follow the UK government lead.
It might have also helped to reduce the liability risk to practitioners.
