New Zealand Law Society - Complaints following letter sent to healthcare providers
The 2026/2027 Practising Certificate renewals are open. Please renew by 30 June 2026.
A Standards Committee found that a letter sent by a lawyer on his law firm’s letterhead to healthcare providers on behalf of a client, had used a legal process for an improper purpose in breach of rule 2.3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (Rules).
The letter contained a warning of possible future litigation against health professionals who have been involved in providing gender-affirming care The Standards Committee considered that the requirement to only use legal processes for a proper purpose is a cornerstone of the legal profession. By drafting and sending the letter to the recipients in the specific circumstances, Mr Franks (and Franks Ogilvie), in the Standards Committee’s majority view, breached rule 2.3 of the Rules and this warranted a finding of unsatisfactory conduct.
Standards Committee decisions are confidential in accordance with regulation 31 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008 (Regulations). However, Standards Committees can direct such publication of their decisions as considered necessary or desirable in the public interest including publication of identity, with prior approval of the Board of the Law Society.
The Standards Committee considered that publication of Mr Franks’ identity and that of the firm regarding a matter already in the public domain would provide for necessary public awareness of its determination, showing how seriously the profession views the issues in these complaints when set against a lawyer’s professional obligations. Additionally, Mr Franks and several complainants had strongly requested that the determination (including publication of Mr Franks’ identity) be made public. As a result, the Standards Committee directed publication of its determination.
On review, the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) reversed the Standards Committee's findings that the sending of the letter to the healthcare providers constituted the use of a legal process and that it was sent for a purpose regarded as improper. The LCRO overturned the Standards Committee’s determination of unsatisfactory conduct and consequently its penalty orders. The publication order was not subject to review (the Committee had stayed publication of its decision pending the outcome of the LCRO review).
The LCRO directed that their decision be published. A copy of the LCRO decision can be found here.