Home > Issues > the Law > Character of District Law Society Council members also at issue
	Empowering Men: fighting feminist lies
Character of District Law Society Council members also at issue (article published in the Dominion Post, 22 March 2006) © Peter Zohrab 2006

 

Peter Zohrab, refused a Law Society certificate for admission to the bar, argues feminists have used political pressure to prevent him becoming a pro-male lawyer dealing with family law.

Outgoing Wellington District Law Society president Pam Davidson (Law Society does not choose lawyers, Feb 23) concentrated on two relatively trivial issues, and managed to create the impression of deceptive behaviour.

Her organisation has been virtually accused of denying me a certificate for political reasons, and all she can say in response is to spell out some legal technicalities of the admission process ! In a free society, there is no legal basis for denying someone entry to the legal profession on the basis of their political views

She correctly points out that the Wellington District Law Society does not admit candidates -- the High Court does -- and that it cannot just drop the "fit and proper" criterion for admission -- Parliament enshrined that in (the previous) legislation.

However, it seems deceptive of her not to have also mentioned that in 2002 the Court in Singh v Auckland District Law Society held that "the legislature has appointed district law societies as the court's surrogates for the purpose of conducting inquiries into an applicant's character." District Law Societies are also usually legally represented at the High Court when a candidate attempts to gain admission without a certificate from the society.

This obviously places a heavy responsibility on the law societies to behave in a lawful and ethical manner. Just as a barrister is an officer of the court, and has a duty to the court that even overrides his/her duty to the client -- so the Wellington District Law Society has an obvious duty to the court and to Parliament (i.e. to us all) to carry out its responsibility in this matter in a way that does not infringe democratic rights.

Ms* Davidson dodged the issue of why it is that her council can lawfully and ethically make the decision that they have made about my character and fitness to be a lawyer.

I am the only candidate not to have been given a certificate by the Wellington District Law Society since (and including) 2002 -- involving an estimated 1,200 candidates. That statistic would seem to imply that the Wellington District Law Society Council should have followed a sound procedure and come to a sound conclusion about some very severe deficiency in my candidature.

The fact alone that a female Council member laughed when I told the Council about being assaulted by feminist law students casts doubt on the judgment of the Council.

If my character is at issue, then -- by the same token -- the character of the people who judged me is also at issue.

Violence is a key issue in family law, in which area I wish to practise, because feminists have used political pressure to make mainstream a sexist fantasy about male violence which is called the Power and Control (Duluth) Model.

According to that model, it is only men who are violent -- but this model is only given credibility because feminists are violent towards men and then do not view violence perpetrated by their "sisters" as anything more than a laughing matter.

Women's violence is as frequent as men's, as can be seen from Professor Martin Fiebert's annotated domestic violence bibliography on the Web.

It is relevant to raise the issue of the broader context, which is the apparent inability of many men and fathers to find lawyers who take a sufficiently pro-men stance.

If the district law society is successful in its attempt to prevent me from becoming a pro-men lawyer, this will cast a shadow on, and be a deterrent to anyone else who may want to follow in my footsteps. Our democracy will suffer.

 

*I tend to avoid using the title "Ms", which was inserted here by the Dominion Post, although I was once complimented by a girlfriend for being an "early adopter" of that title, when writing to her. My reason for now wanting to avoid using it is that it is a symbol of the totally fake "equality" which Feminists often claim that Feminism is about. See The Equality Lie.

 

Home Issues Links FAQ Book Quotes Lawyers Email us ! SiteMap

Webmaster Peter Douglas Zohrab Latest Update 27 July 2015

Top