Matt Taylor: "Everyone in the legal profession or who's about to enter the profession has a legal responsibility to address sexual harassment. It's something that's been shied away from. No one wants to discuss it."

The High Court's decision to grant a rare super-injunction concealing the botched handling of a sexual harassment case was made without reference to critical facts.

Canterbury University law graduate Matt Taylor and Stuff challenged the gagging order and this week, four months on, were granted leave to disclose the alleged harassment or bullying.

It came after Malcolm Ellis, acting complaints manager at the lawyers' disciplinary body, accidentally forwarded details of complaints to Taylor – who can now be identified as the target of the super-injunction. He is a 23-year-old law blogger who is completing his legal professional studies.

Taylor immediately realised he wasn't supposed to have received that email, in which a lawyer disclosed complaints about his own conduct. "I was shocked at what the contents were, and concerned," he said.

READ MORE:

* Jonathan Milne: This is just a gag too far

* Justice Minister demands injunction explanation

* Law Society super-injunction overturned

* Lawyers' sexual harassment 'worst kept secret'

"I just sat with it deciding what to do with it. I consulted with a senior legal practitioner who is an expert in ethics and discussed it with them and decided that the best thing to do was to ask the Law Society questions to reassure myself that they were taking the matter seriously.

"I wanted to make sure that the sexual harassment matter in the email would be dealt with properly."

JOHN KIRK-ANDERSON/STUFF Matt Taylor, 23, was the target of a Law Society super-injunction to stop him disclosing what he knew about a botched sexual harassment or bullying investigation.

The Law Society applied for the injunction a week later, without notice, telling Justice Peter Churchman that Taylor had failed to reply to their emails, text messages and phone calls entreating him to destroy the confidential case file.

But in fact, Taylor emailed the Law Society's acting executive director and its barrister on March 28, the night before the injunction was to be considered, assuring them he had not disclosed the contents of the email.

"As you are both aware we all have an obligation to maintain the public confidence in the provision of legal services," he wrote.

NZ LAW SOCIETY Law Society President Kathryn Beck: "This breach, honestly, it couldn't be more unfortunate for us."

"That public confidence has been undermined with the widespread issues of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and bullying in law firms. This has been exacerbated by an inadequate response from the Law Society. Without significant action these issues have the potential to continue and escalate to the level of the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal."

The Law Society belatedly reported his email in a memorandum to Justice Churchman, but it appears it reached the judge too late – because on the following day, March 29, Churchman granted one of the most sweeping gagging orders this country has seen. He made the order on the papers, without holding a hearing or seeking a response from Taylor.

"The fact he has not responded to the many different forms of communication to him raise a legitimate concern, unless restrained, he may seek to publish the material that he received," the judge ruled.

The Law Society is already facing severe scrutiny over its handling of sexual harassment of young women lawyers at old-school law firm Russell McVeagh, and at several law schools. And it was widely condemned for mounting a standards investigation into lawyer Catriona MacLennan, who had dared to criticise a judge for blamed the victim in a domestic assault.

The Society has called in former judge and governor-general Dame Silvia Cartwright to investigate sexual harassment problems in the profession – but its troubles are only mounting. On Friday, Justice Minister Andrew Little told Stuff he was surprised to learn of the super-injunction and its duration, and would be demanding answers from the Law Society.

Super-injunctions have been controversial internationally. Due to their secrecy, it's not possible to say how many have been issued, nor how many still exist. The most famous was the case of English footballer Ryan Giggs, who tried to keep secret details of his extramarital "threesome" with a Big Brother contestant. The injunction failed to hold when Giggs' name began trending on Twitter.

English footballer Ryan Giggs resorted to a super-injunction in a failed bid to keep secret details of his extramarital "threesome" with a Big Brother contestant.

Amid concern about a lack of transparency, the UK set up an official committee on super-injunctions in 2010. It found they could become a danger to the principles of open justice, and should be used only in the very short term.

So the Law Society has been anxious to justify its recourse to such an extreme measure – but its explanations have been contradictory.

This week, Law Society president Kathryn Beck repeatedly claimed they were forced to apply for the super-injunction, because Taylor had not responded to them. In an interview on Friday, she said: "He [Taylor] did not directly write back to us at all until ... after we had served the proceedings on him."

Beck was advised that he had actually responded the day before the injunction was put in place – and a whole week before he was served. Yet on Saturday afternoon, she repeated the incorrect claim in a press statement: "As soon as we discovered the breach we made repeated efforts to contact the person to whom the information had been sent. There was no response."

(The Law Society later sent out a new press release, correcting Beck's statement).

IAIN MCGREGOR / STUFF Matt Taylor says it would have cost the Law Society at least $10,000 to issue the injunction order against him. "And on the other hand, they've said there's no money to pay for the sexual harassment task force they have set up with volunteers."

This erroneous claim was the primary grounds on which the High Court issued the injunction – and it is not the only contradiction in the Law Society's position. On March 24, acting regulatory general manager Neil Mallon wrote to Taylor saying: "We are confident that you will delete the material."

But by the time the Society applied for an injunction, it had changed its tune: "There is a risk that the respondent will publish or otherwise disclose the information," its counsel warned the judge.

In fact, Taylor said, he had deleted it all.

'IT WAS LIKE A WEIGHT'

The contradictions in the Law Society's positions went to the heart of Matt Taylor's concerns.

The graduate never asked to become embroiled in this injunction – but having dealt previously with the Law Society and having seen how it handled other sexual harassment cases in the headlines, he was worried.

Tidy and clean-shaven, the young lawyer speaks slowly and weighs each word. The contents of the email were "distressing", and that was compounded by the fact he was not allowed to talk to anyone about it, apart from his lawyer. And it went on for four months. "It was like a weight".

Taylor is presently looking for a job. A legal clash with the body representing lawyers probably doesn't help his case – but he believed he had an obligation to stand up and do the right thing.

"Everyone in the legal profession or who's about to enter the profession has a legal responsibility to address sexual harassment. It's something that's been shied away from. No one wants to discuss it."

Taylor wears a smart shirt and black jeans. His parents, he said, come from a working class background – so he knew how lucky he was to have the opportunity to speak up. "I have more privilege to do that. It would feel wrong not to say something. I have a strong sense of justice. I don't know if something triggered that.

"I asked some questions because I was uncomfortable."

Because the Law Society's gagging order was a "no notice" injunction, the first Taylor knew of it was when the Court orders were served. "Later on, the NZ Law Society president offered to meet with me but I refused because of the court case they had taken against me, and thought it would be better to meet when this was over.

"I don't think any other organisation would over-react like they did," he said. "They pushed the boundaries by asking for a super-injunction while at the same time telling the public [in the wake of the Russell McVeagh revelations] that everything was fine and there was nothing to worry about.

"They were making public statements that they weren't suppressing Catriona MacLennan's free speech but that's what they were doing to me."

"The NZLS is meant to stand up for the rule of law and democracy and justice and a super injunction is the opposite to these things – but it was in their own interest."

Taylor identified one more contradiction in the Law Society's decision to to to the High Court to get a super-injunction against him.

"It would have cost them at least $10,000, they involved a barrister, a solicitor, a law firm partner, a QC and their staff," he said. "And on the other hand, they've said there's no money to pay for the sexual harassment task force they have set up with volunteers."

Comments on this story have been closed