Statements by Law Society rile blogger

"This has caused confusion which I need to clear up. The blog is anonymous."

Blogger Zoe Lawton, pictured left, responds to the Law Society making statements about her #Metoo blog without her permission.

The Law Society has been accused of muddying waters by making statements about a #Metoo blogger without her permission.

However, the society says the matter is a misunderstanding and it never planned to access confidential details about the people who had posted without their permission.

Long-serving Wellington lawyer Barbara Buckett said it appeared the Law Society was taking proprietary rights over Lawton’s blog.

The fact so few lawyers had called the society’s 0800 hotline – compared to those writing on Zoe Lawton’s #metoo blog – suggested people were not happy with the society’s approach to the situation, she said.

That approach was adversarial when really it should have been front-footing the claims of sexual misconduct in the law profession, she said. ‘‘It is too little, too late.’’

Lawton’s blog – an anonymous online site where people can post about sexual harassment and bullying in the legal profession – closed last week with 214 posts.

This compares with the Law Society’s own, similar 0800 number, which is staffed by five people but got just seven calls in its first week.

Last Friday, Lawton presented her blog to members of the New Zealand Law Society. Acting executive director Mary Ollivier said it would work with Lawton about taking action over some of the incidents revealed in the blog posts.

But Lawton on Thursday said the Law Society had made public statements about her and her blog this week without her knowledge or permission.

‘‘This has caused confusion which I need to clear up. The blog is anonymous and the identities of those who provided posts are and always will be confidential,’’ she said.

‘‘I am totally independent from the Law Society and am not working for the Law Society in any capacity. I will only liaise with the Law Society if an individual explicitly asks me to pass on information.’’

A Law Society spokesman this week said: ‘‘In no way did we intend to infer that Zoe Lawton was providing information on the people who posted on the blog to the New Zealand Law Society.’’

All Lawton did was supply a full copy of her blog, which is already available publicly online.

‘‘It has always been understood that Ms Lawton is working totally independently of the Law Society. Because her initiative is one which has deserved to be brought to the attention of members of the legal profession we have drawn lawyers’ attention to the existence of the blog.

‘‘We have never said it has any connection to the Law Society.’’

It never intended to imply Lawton was providing confidential information, he said. ‘‘If there is anything which gives particular concern and where it is felt further investigation is needed, there is obviously a problem in obtaining further information.

‘‘It is totally appreciated that Ms Lawton would never provide details, but there is the possibility that through liaison with the Law Society she might contact the poster and ask them if they could consider providing further details.’’