Psycho-Babble Politics | about politics | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

legal privaledge

Posted by alexandra_k on June 27, 2020, at 18:51:52

In reply to Re: privacy, defamation, libel,, posted by alexandra_k on June 27, 2020, at 17:58:54

I think that was it. That was the other one.

There's a common mis-conception amongst lawyers, in New Zealand, that 'legal privaledge' is something that is for the benefit of the LAWYER (rather than the benefit of the person / company / whatever who commissioned their work.

What do I mean?

Well... Lets's say the University of Waikato wants to know whether there is a problem in having students enrol and pay for a 120 point 1 year research project and then... Not sending their work out for examination and requiring re-enrolment for additional points and requiring additional payments of fees before the University will look at conferring any Degree. Let's say the University of Waikato pays for legal advice about whether this business practice is okay or not when it comes to the Laws in New Zealand.

So the lawyer or the law firm or whatever (they will likely go with a firm if possible who has more money money money money money tied up in the firm)...

Writes a report. Where, of course, they don't see any problem with the University of Waikato doing anything anything anything that the University would like to do, at all. No problem. Just do whatever you want whenever you want because you want and since you are the most powerful the laws of this country are on your side always. xxx.

So now we wonder what will happen when a student takes the University to court for refusing to work to international standards (refusing to get the work to examiners in a timely fashion such that examination can be wrapped up within 3 months, refusing to base the outcome of examination on reports of examiners external to teh University). In fact the Education Act is a statute that talks about international standards which they clearly violated in refusing to base the outcome of examination on external reports.

And the lawyer (the firm) thinks it's okay because 'Legal Privaledge' is to benefit the lawyer and the legal advice that the lawyer / firm gave to the University is legally privaledged aka not admissable in court.

Except the University will gladly give the legal advice they received to the judge. That's precisely why they likely got legal advice from ALL the FIRMS they could find. To try and collect up ALL the 'yeah sure good idea do what you want' advice. So they could hold all of that up to the judge and blink their blinky stupid eyes and say 'we were acting under legal advice when we did what we did'.

And the lawyers / firms are going...


Because they didn't think they were accountable. They thought legal privaledge was for the benefit of them.

But nonononononono

(it was too cold, always)

It is that the University doesn't have to produce any of the reports from lawyers that told them not to do such a wicked bad thing that is obviously illegal. The University NEED NOT display that advice to the court (it is their perogative. It is legal privaledge).

The law firm that 'told them so' cannot say 'we told them so' because of... Legal Privaledge.

Why isn't this obvious?

Oh yeah...

Becaue I keep thinking that lawyers understand that their service is to JUSTICE rather than THE HIGHEST BIDDER




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Politics | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:1111043