KC complains about new Law Society regulation
Gary Judd KC writes:
At present, the compulsory law degree subjects are The Legal System, The Law of Contracts, The Law of Torts, Criminal Law, Public Law and Property Law.
The tikanga regulations make it compulsory for all students commencing a law degree from 1 January 2025 to complete a subject on the general principles and practices of tikanga Māori | Māori laws and philosophy, and for tikanga Māori | Māori laws and philosophy to be included in all other subjects which are part of the compulsory requirements for the LLB and LLB Honours degrees.
This will not be about education, but indoctrination. Law students will have to agree with a particular interpretation in order to become lawyers.
The principal purpose of this complaint is to urge that one of the committee’s members move a resolution that the House disallow the tikanga regulations.
That’s a good idea, and a way for Parliament to say this is going too far.
IMO Parliament need to go even further and legislate so that no professional body can insist on completing some sort of cultural course as a requirement for registration. We’ve seen this for real estate agents now, and this is actually all about trying to impose a unilateral world view on all professional bodies.
UPDATE: The Dean of the AUT Law School, Khylee Quince, responded to Mr Judd’s article on social media saying:
I suppose it was inevitable that one of the old racist dinosaurs would make a pathetic squeal in an attempt to preserve the status quo…. Mr Judd and his “matauranga Maori is not science” friends can go die quietly in the corner…
Mr Judd points out:
What sort of lawyers will be produced by a law faculty led by someone who resorts to petty abuse instead of engaging in rational argument?
Why did she not explain why tikanga is law? Why did she not explain why a body of law built up over centuries for the purpose of testing whether a custom should be accorded the status of law must be jettisoned because tikanga cannot meet those standards? Why did she not answer other matters raised in my complaint to the regulations review committee? Responses like those could have been expected from a person holding a privileged leadership position.
The mindless abuse by Dean Quince of Mr Judd is something you might expect from an excitable first year law student, not the Dean of a Law School.
t makes you worry for any student at AUT Law School. If they dare disagree with the Dean, will they also be subject to such abuse? Does AUT Law School strike you as a place that welcomes debate and disagreement?
I can only suggest that law firms and others avoid hiring anyone who graduates as a lawyer from AUT. We want lawyers who are trained got debate and think, not just call people names and say they hope they die.
Incidentally Mr Judd has been a KC/QC for 29 years. As far as I can see he has appeared before the Supreme Court over a dozen times, and before the Privy Council almost the same. I’d say he has learnt the right to express his opinion on legal matters, without being abused for it.
Dean Quince, before she became an academic, was a staff solicitor for three years.
Incidentally the Rules for Lawyers specify the following:
- A lawyer must promote and maintain professional standards.
- A lawyer must, when acting in a professional capacity, treat all persons with respect and courtesy.
- A lawyer must not engage in conduct that tends to bring the profession into disrepute.
You’d expect the Dean of a Law School to not just act with the highest ethical standards, but at least the minimum standards set down under the law.