Browsing by Author "Kersey K"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Case commentary: a ‘merciful approach’ to discipline for a New Zealand lawyer’s misconduct
(Taylor and Francis Group, 2024-05-12) Diesfeld K; Rychert M; Surgenor LJ; Kelly O; Kersey K
A recent decision reveals how a New Zealand’s disciplinary tribunal promoted justice for an unwell lawyer in a case of professional misconduct. In 2023, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (LCDT) applied a ‘merciful approach’ when assessing the lawyer’s misconduct and health issues. In Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Ms W [2023], the LCDT discussed the impacts of reproductive treatment in relation to the practitioner’s conduct. This decision is the foundation to compare the disciplinary regime for legal and health practitioners in New Zealand. The article outlines New Zealand’s framework for discipline of lawyers, noting the absence of a health pathway. The article discusses opportunities to resolve cases involving impaired lawyers outside the disciplinary system, including benefits and disadvantages of mandatory reporting. While focusing on the legal profession, the discussion is relevant to other professions and examines health-promoting regulatory strategies from other jurisdictions.
'I don't consider cancer when I'm grabbing the beer': Discursive strategies used by midlife New Zealanders to undermine alcohol-cancer risks
(Oxford University Press, 2025-12) Lyons AC; Kersey K; Young J; Stephens C; Blake D; Anderson R
Compared with other age groups, adults at midlife consume alcohol at relatively high levels. Alcohol has been linked to a number of long-term health risks, including cancer, although awareness of cancer risk is low. The current study aimed to examine how adults at midlife talk about, understand and consider alcohol-related cancer risks within their life contexts. Individual interviews were undertaken with 37 adults (41-64 years; 28 female, 9 male) about their alcohol consumption, views on the health risks of drinking, and understandings of the alcohol-cancer association. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded and subjected to a discursive analysis. Participants constructed their drinking as low-risk because it was controlled, responsible, and moderate. They used discursive strategies to undermine the evidence on the cancer risks of alcohol by contrasting it with (stronger) evidence for tobacco risk, drawing on personal accounts of exceptional cases, and displaying 'risk fatigue' because alcohol was just one of many carcinogens they navigate in daily life. The pleasure they derived from alcohol outweighed cancer risks. Cancer risk evidence was itself constructed as risky because people with cancer could be blamed for their disease. These findings show that public health messages about alcohol and cancer risk need to incorporate people's own sense-making about alcohol and risk within their lives, including notions of pleasure. Unintended consequences of current messaging include short-term risks (to health and wellbeing) and moral risks (potential for people to be blamed for cancer) and therefore may be ignored or resisted by target populations.
To Impose or Not Impose Penalty Conditions Following Professional Misconduct: What Factors Are Cited by Three Professional Disciplinary Tribunals in New Zealand?
(MDPI (Basel, Switzerland), 2024-12) Surgenor L; Diesfeld K; Rychert M; Kelly O; Kersey K; Easteal P
Profession-related disciplinary tribunals consider a range of factors when determining penalties following findings of professional misconduct. Penalties that impose conditions on practice hold the potential to facilitate practitioners’ rehabilitation back to safe practice. This study explores the use of penalty conditions by three disciplinary tribunals in New Zealand (the Lawyers and Conveyancers Tribunal [LCDT]; the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal [HPDT]; and the Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal [TDT]). Disciplinary decisions published between 2018 and 2022 (N = 538) were analysed, coding the explicit reasons cited for imposing or not imposing conditions and if rehabilitation was cited as a penalty principle. Conditions were imposed in 58.6% of the cases, though tribunals varied. All of the tribunals commonly referred to the concepts of remorse/insight, or lack of it, as reasons for ordering or not ordering conditions, and they often considered the seriousness of the misconduct. Reasons for not ordering conditions were more varied between tribunals, as was citing rehabilitation as a penalty principle. The findings suggest that tribunals give substantial consideration to the decision of imposing conditions, drawing on both objective (e.g., past misconduct) and subjective (e.g., cognitive and psychological) phenomena. The reasons did align with concepts found in broad sentencing guidelines from some other jurisdictions (e.g., criminal justice response), though future research on defining and measuring these concepts may help understand their predictive and protective utility.