Legal researcher Zoë Lawton has handed a full copy of her #Metoo blog to the New Zealand Law Society.

The blog information was accepted by Law Society Acting Executive Director Mary Ollivier and General Manager, Regulatory, Neil Mallon.

Ms Lawton also provided a full copy to the Minister of Justice and each of the universities that has a law school.

The blog went live on 28 February and was live for just over a month. In that time 214 posts were published, with 190 from women and 24 from men. The blog was viewed around 40,000 times while it was live. Ms Lawton says it will remain online to be used as a resource.

“The vast majority of women who submitted posts have personal experience of sexual harassment and bullying. These women hold a range of roles and at various seniority levels: partners of firms, senior lawyers, junior lawyers, legal secretaries and support staff, legal staff in government agencies right through to academics and law students. The majority of women (60%) were aged 18 to 35 and 40% were aged 36 to 65,” Ms Lawton stated.

“The majority of sexual harassment described in the posts was perpetuated by males in senior roles, such as partners and chief executives of law firms, barristers, and senior lawyers in government agencies that undertake legal work.

“Many women and a number of men describe how the culture of sexual harassment is engrained in their workplace. There are accounts of the after-hours socialising and heavy drinking culture during which time sexual harassment occurred. However, many posts describe sexual harassment occurring during working hours, in the office, and sometimes in full view of other staff.”

Law Society Acting Executive Director Mary Ollivier says the Law Society greatly appreciates the intiative taken by Ms Lawton and will work with her about taking action over some of the incidents revealed in the blog postings.

The New Zealand Law Society says is does not consider that forfeiture of property is an appropriate legal consequence of committing an infringement offence.

In a submission to Parliament’s Environment Committee on the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill, the Law Society says the bill introduces an infringement system into conservation related legislation. However, it does not limit the consequences of infringement offending to a modest infringement fee.

“Rather, the bill provides for a combination of infringement fee and potential forfeiture of property, depending on whether a charging document is laid in relation to an infringement offence. The Law Society considers that it is inappropriate to provide for forfeiture of property to be a potential consequence of the commission of an infringement offence.”

The submission recommends that the consequence of committing an infringement offence should be limited to payment of an infringement fee of no more than $1,000. It says the forfeiture of property provisions are inconsistent with the fundamental principles underpinning infringement offence regimes and they should be removed from the bill.

Houston, TX (Law Firm Newswire) April 9, 2018 – Although the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was set to expire on March 5, DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers, may not be leaving the country just yet.

The DACA program has permitted some individuals who came into the United States illegally as minors to apply for a renewable two-year deferred action period protecting them from deportation and allowing them to obtain work permits.

In September 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stop renewing DACA permits, starting March 5, 2018. This executive order stands to impact approximately 700,000 Dreamers if/when the program ends.

In response to that executive order, the University of California opted to sue the DHS on behalf of 4,000 students, stating that administrative procedures were not properly followed. The court ultimately agreed and on January 10 a California Federal District Judge temporarily blocked the government’s efforts to terminate DACA and ordered the administration to start taking DACA renewal applications once more.

On January 18, the Trump administration, in a move to bypass the usual appeal route, appealed the Federal District Judge’s ruling directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to hear the case. If they do decide to proceed, a process referred to as “certiorari granted sub nomine” (judicial review granted, under name) would begin. It is expected that the earliest ruling would likely be handed down this June. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, the appeal would then have to be heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Until the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals deliver a verdict, the lower court’s ruling blocking the executive order stands and the earliest date for any changes to DACA are expected to start in June.
“Those in the DACA program have no idea what is going to happen next, how this change of policy is going to affect them, what they will do if they are deported back to a country they no longer know and how they will cope with losing their ‘dream,’” said respected Huston immigration lawyer, Annie Banerjee. “If you are wondering how the possible termination of DACA may affect you, it is best to discuss your situation with an experienced immigration attorney.”

Law Offices of Annie Banerjee
131 Brooks Street, Suite #300
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Phone: (281) 242-9139

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA |