Investigating Franks Ogilvie: A Law Firm’s Influence on New Zealand’s Culture Wars

Intimidation by Letter: Targeting Transgender Healthcare Providers

In February 2025, Wellington law firm Franks Ogilvie sent a wave of letters to medical providers across New Zealand who offer gender-affirming healthcare. Acting on behalf of a new lobby group called Inflection Point NZ, the firm warned about 20 general practices, specialists, and clinicians that they could face future legal action for prescribing puberty blockers or other gender-affirming treatments. The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners swiftly condemned the mass mailing as a “blatant attempt to intimidate” doctors and “alter [their] behaviour” in providing care. Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora) likewise reassured its staff that the threatening letter had no legal standing – noting that “Inflection Point NZ does not currently have a cognisable basis for any actual legal claims” – and urged clinicians to continue using their best judgment in treating transgender patients.

Stephen Franks, Franks Ogilvie’s principal and a former Member of Parliament, has openly acknowledged authoring the letters on Inflection Point’s instructions. Franks contends that the correspondence merely “highlighted the risks for health practitioners” in light of overseas developments, such as the UK’s Cass Review which led to tighter rules on youth gender medicine. He argued that health authorities in New Zealand “should have written exactly the kind of letter [his] client instructed [the firm] to write” to warn providers of potential liabilities. Franks insists the intent was not to harass doctors but to ensure they stay up-to-date with evolving evidence. Nevertheless, many recipients experienced the letter’s tone as highly threatening – “scaremongering horseshit,” as one commentator bluntly put it– prompting at least two official complaints to the New Zealand Law Society and a report to police about the firm’s tactics.

Franks Ogilvie remains defiant amid the backlash. Citing the legal profession’s “cab rank rule” (the principle that lawyers should accept any client within their expertise) and their duty not to mislead in legal communications, Franks asserts it would be “unethical for us to withdraw” from representing a client due to public criticism of that client’s views. In a public statement, the firm characterized the outrage as “peculiar,” noting that the government itself has been re-examining gender medicine policies and potential regulatory change. The controversy, however, has drawn national attention to Franks Ogilvie and its modus operandi – raising questions about the firm’s broader role in advancing a conservative legal agenda in New Zealand’s culture wars.

The Inflection Point NZ Network – Uniting Conservative Forces

The client at the center of the letter saga, Inflection Point NZ, is a recently formed coalition of activists united by opposition to what they call “gender indoctrination and medicalisation” of children. Despite branding itself as a group of concerned “middle New Zealand” parents, Inflection Point NZ’s ranks read like a who’s who of the country’s social conservative and right-wing advocacy scene. The group’s events and publicity material boast a lineup of polarizing figures: Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki, Family First director Bob McCoskrie, former National MP Simon O’Connor, ‘gender-critical’ activist Posie Parker (Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull) via video link, and others. In May 2024, Inflection Point NZ hosted a summit in Wellington – pointedly titled “Unsilenced” – bringing together these speakers to rally against transgender rights and “ideological” policies, a convergence the group itself hailed as an unprecedented alliance of voices from churches, feminist circles, and political insiders.

By serving as Inflection Point’s legal attack dog, Franks Ogilvie has effectively lent the group a veneer of professional legitimacy and amplified its impact. The February 2025 letters exemplify a legal strategy of intimidation: formally put doctors “on notice” that they “may at some point in the future be liable” for providing gender-affirming care. The letters did not cite any specific pending case, and even acknowledged that Inflection Point had no standing to bring a lawsuit or complaint on its own. In essence, the firm was warning of hypothetical litigation – a specter of unnamed patients who might sue years down the line – in order to sow doubt and fear among healthcare providers. Medical professionals described feeling “scared” and alarmed by the aggressive legal language. Critics note the chilling effect was likely by design: one health law expert said the goal was clearly to “discourage clinicians from providing gender-affirming care” through menacing tone alone. Franks Ogilvie’s involvement gave these threats a credibility that a fringe lobby might not command on its own.

Notably, this is not the firm’s first foray into anti-transgender activism. In 2021, Franks Ogilvie provided legal support to a group called L.A.V.A. (Lesbians Against Violence and Abuse) in a high-profile dispute with the Wellington Pride Festival. LAVA, a self-described “gender critical” lesbian organization, was barred from participating in the city’s Pride events due to its anti-trans stance. With Franks Ogilvie instructing a senior barrister on its behalf, LAVA brought a claim to the Human Rights Review Tribunal alleging unlawful discrimination by Pride organizers on the basis of “political opinion”. Similarly, the firm has represented Speak Up For Women (SUFW) – another group opposed to transgender-inclusive policies – in multiple proceedings. In mid-2021, Franks Ogilvie acted for SUFW in a successful High Court challenge that forced local councils to allow the group to hold public meetings, after venues had been cancelled under pressure from LGBTQ+ advocates. That case (Whitmore v Palmerston North CC) resulted in a landmark judgment affirming SUFW was not a “hate group” and that the cancellation breached its freedom of expression rights. Franks Ogilvie lawyers proudly tout this victory on the firm’s website, framing it as a win for free speech and assembly.

Through these cases, Franks Ogilvie has positioned itself as the go-to legal champion for a network of organizations pushing back against progressive gains in transgender rights. Inflection Point NZ is only the latest addition to that network, which links Christian conservatives, self-described feminists opposed to trans inclusion, and other ideologues under a shared banner. It is a constellation that spans from street protests to courtrooms, and Franks Ogilvie’s fingerprints are increasingly visible at every node.

Stephen Franks: From ACT MP to Right-Wing Legal Strategist

At the center of Franks Ogilvie’s activism is Stephen Franks himself – a veteran lawyer-turned-politician-turned-agitator who has spent decades at the intersection of law and conservative politics in New Zealand. Franks, now in his 70s, first rose to prominence as a list MP for the libertarian ACT Party, serving in Parliament for six years (1999–2005). With a background in corporate and securities law, he brought a hard-nosed, often contrarian perspective to Parliament – advocating tougher criminal justice policies, free-market economics, and a deeply skeptical view of what he saw as political correctness or “nanny state” policies. After leaving ACT, Franks made an unsuccessful bid for the National Party (contesting the Wellington Central electorate in 2008), but his political ambitions ultimately gave way to a career wielding influence from outside the House. In 2009, he co-founded Franks Ogilvie as a specialist firm focusing on “the intersection of government and commerce” – a description that belies how entangled the firm would become in polarizing social issues.

Franks’ personal ideological track record is unambiguous. He has frequently courted controversy with his comments on LGBTQ+ matters. For instance, during the debate over civil unions and same-sex marriage in the mid-2000s, Franks staunchly opposed legal recognition for gay couples and employed a now-infamous analogy to explain his view. “I love my dog,” he argued, “but that doesn’t mean I should be able to marry it.” Such remarks drew outrage at the time and have not been forgotten – resurfacing in 2008 to the shock of youthful voters when Franks stood by the comparison on the campaign trail. He also once complained of being “sick of… whining gays,” positioning himself as a champion of traditional social mores. These incidents illustrate Franks’ longstanding alignment with socially conservative and libertarian causes, even when at odds with mainstream opinion.

Since returning to legal practice, Franks has reinvented himself as a free-speech crusader and legal strategist for the right. He was a leading figure in the self-styled Free Speech Coalition that emerged in 2018 after Auckland Council banned two controversial Canadian far-right speakers from using public venues. As a spokesperson for the coalition, Franks criticized the ban as “a completely improper use of… censorship powers,” framing it as a dangerous precedent. Although that particular legal challenge was ultimately unsuccessful in court, it cemented Franks’ role as a public advocate for minimal restrictions on expression – even for what he once termed “odd or obnoxious views.” He has since weighed in frequently on debates over so-called “cancel culture” and proposed hate speech laws, reliably taking the position that government and institutions should not police speech. His firm’s willingness to represent fringe or unpopular clients (from anti-trans activists to anti-vaccine protesters) is a direct extension of Franks’ free speech absolutism. It also reflects his belief that legal pushback can be an effective tool to halt progressive policy – whether by invoking the Bill of Rights in court or by sending intimidating legal letters to apply pressure outside of court.

In shaping Franks Ogilvie’s approach, Stephen Franks has cultivated a reputation as a “political lawyer” – one who uses legal mechanisms to advance an ideological agenda. Supporters see him as principled and unafraid to defend clients demonized by the mainstream. Critics, on the other hand, see a pattern of weaponizing legal processes to frustrate social change and to lend credibility to extremist or discriminatory positions. Either way, Franks’ personal convictions clearly permeate the firm’s docket, blurring the line between legal advocacy and political activism.

Ties to Conservative and Libertarian Advocacy Groups

Franks Ogilvie’s influence extends beyond isolated court cases; the firm and its people are embedded in a wider ecosystem of New Zealand’s right-leaning and conservative organizations. Their fingerprints can be found in think tanks, astroturf campaigns, and political parties – often operating behind the scenes to shape discourse and policy. Several notable linkages stand out:

• New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union (NZTU): The Taxpayers’ Union is a well-funded libertarian lobby group known for advocating lower taxes and spending, while also taking populist stances against policies it deems “woke.” Although Franks Ogilvie is not formally listed as a partner, the connections are tangible. The Union’s co-founder and director, Jordan Williams, is a close ally who has benefited from Franks Ogilvie’s support. Williams also leads the Free Speech Union (FSU) – originally an offshoot of the Taxpayers’ Union – which fights speech restrictions. The FSU is actually hosted in Franks Ogilvie’s offices on The Terrace in Wellington, effectively getting free administrative support and a prestigious address courtesy of the firm. This arrangement underscores the shared agenda: the FSU, despite its branding as a non-partisan “union,” principally exists to amplify causes aligned with the political right (for example, it has campaigned on behalf of the aforementioned Speak Up For Women). Commentators note that groups like the Taxpayers’ Union and FSU present as grassroots initiatives but rely on backing from elite networks – in one analysis, their “support comes from above, not below,” with key players overlapping and even sharing real estate. Franks Ogilvie’s role in providing that base of operations is part of this pattern of astroturfing, where corporate or political interests create front groups to mimic genuine public movements.

• Family First: Franks Ogilvie’s recent client Inflection Point NZ provides a direct bridge to Family First, the influential conservative Christian lobby headed by Bob McCoskrie. McCoskrie, a prominent Inflection Point speaker, has led Family First’s campaigns against abortion, same-sex marriage, and comprehensive sex education for years. While Franks Ogilvie did not represent Family First in its own legal battles, the firm’s work dovetails with Family First’s agenda. For example, the Inflection Point letters targeting gender-affirming care closely mirror Family First’s messaging warning about puberty blockers. Stephen Franks has frequently appeared in forums and media alongside Family First-aligned figures to discuss “free speech” or “parents’ rights” in education. The Destiny Church network of Brian Tamaki – another Inflection Point partner – similarly overlaps with the firm’s causes (Tamaki’s followers have protested vaccine mandates and LGBT-inclusive policies, causes Franks Ogilvie has shown sympathy toward). By empowering Inflection Point NZ, Franks Ogilvie in effect bolsters the influence of Family First and similar groups, giving legal teeth to what have largely been moral and political crusades.

• NZ First and Other Political Parties: The firm’s ideological leanings often echo the platforms of right-leaning political parties like New Zealand First and ACT. While Stephen Franks’ own past is with ACT, the firm’s recent causes resonate with NZ First’s rhetoric as well. During the 2023 election, for instance, NZ First leader Winston Peters campaigned against “gender ideology” in schools and spoke out against puberty blockers for youth – the very issues Inflection Point NZ and Franks Ogilvie have been agitating on. Peters and Franks also found common ground in opposing hate speech law reforms, portraying them as attacks on free expression. Furthermore, personnel in Franks Ogilvie’s orbit have cycled into party politics: Casey Costello, a Hobson’s Pledge spokesperson who shares the firm’s views on co-governance and free speech, became a NZ First list MP in 2023, exemplifying the crossover between activist networks and political office. Another Franks Ogilvie director, Brigitte Morten, has a background working for the National Party in advisory roles and frequently appears as a conservative political commentator. These links suggest that Franks Ogilvie is not just a passive law firm, but an active node in the country’s right-wing political web – helping to coordinate strategy and lending technical expertise to campaigns aligned with parties like ACT, National’s right wing, and NZ First.

In cultivating these alliances, Franks Ogilvie performs a delicate balancing act. On one hand, it engages in overt political advocacy, pushing narratives about government overreach, political correctness, or threats to children. On the other, it maintains the facade of a neutral legal service, asserting (as in the Inflection Point letter saga) that it is simply advising clients on risk. The firm’s connections to advocacy groups, however, reveal that its principals are often ideologically invested in the outcomes. The causes it takes up are not random; they form a coherent worldview championed by Stephen Franks and colleagues – a mix of libertarian economics, social conservatism, and a distrust of liberal institutions.

Shaping Public Discourse and Legal Precedent

Through high-profile cases and media presence, Franks Ogilvie has managed to punch above its weight in influencing New Zealand’s public discourse. By design, many of the firm’s legal interventions set precedents or examples that ripple beyond the immediate parties involved:

• The Speak Up For Women litigation of 2021, for example, not only vindicated one group’s right to use public venues, but also signaled to other controversial speakers that they could successfully challenge deplatforming. The case put councils on notice that invoking “health and safety” to cancel events (a tactic used to bar SUFW’s feminist speakers who opposed transgender-inclusive laws) could be deemed an unlawful limit on free speech. Following the win, multiple city councils reversed course and allowed similar meetings to proceed. Franks Ogilvie’s effort thus set a de-facto standard: even speech widely condemned as transphobic was to be accommodated in public spaces under the law. This precedent is now often cited by Free Speech Union activists in debates over university events and political protests.

• The ongoing LAVA vs. Pride case in the Human Rights Review Tribunal has the potential to break new ground in anti-discrimination law. By framing LAVA’s exclusion from a Pride festival as discrimination based on “political opinion,” the case (spearheaded by Franks Ogilvie behind the scenes) is testing whether “gender-critical” beliefs qualify for protection akin to religious or political creed. A ruling in LAVA’s favor could empower other anti-trans activists to claim a legal shield for their views, dramatically affecting how private organizations and events set inclusion policies. Even before any judgment, the case’s very existence has forced a public conversation about the boundaries between hate speech and protected belief – precisely the conversation Franks and his allies want to have.

• By sending the Inflection Point NZ letters to doctors, Franks Ogilvie has already influenced behaviour in subtler ways. Even though Health NZ and professional bodies advised clinicians to ignore the non-binding threat, insiders say some practitioners have grown more cautious, for instance by seeking additional approvals before prescribing puberty blockers. The letters injected the spectre of future lawsuits into medical decision-making, and that fear can be difficult to dispel completely. In effect, the firm attempted to create a chilling precedent without ever stepping into a courtroom – a strategic use of legal posturing as a form of activism. PATHA, the Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa, noted that a broad swathe of providers (including psychologists and endocrinologists) received nearly identical letters, suggesting a coordinated campaign to pressure the entire sector. This has raised debate about whether lawyers should be permitted to send mass “warning” letters to professionals absent any active case, or if doing so veers into unethical territory of harassment.

Outside the courtroom, Stephen Franks and his colleagues regularly leverage media (both traditional and social) to shape narratives. Franks pens opinion pieces and appears on talk shows to argue, for example, that hate speech laws endanger democracy, or that Māori co-governance arrangements undermine equal citizenship. In these forums he presents as a constitutional expert, a role bolstered by his legal credentials. The firm’s directors and consultants have been similarly active: Brigitte Morten provides political commentary in news outlets, and consultant Rob Ogilvie (Franks’ co-founder) has been involved in free-market policy circles, though he keeps a lower public profile. The combined effect is a steady injection of Franks Ogilvie’s perspective into public debate, often without casual observers realizing the interconnectedness of it all. A letter to a council here, a radio interview there, a legal threat over here – together these efforts normalize positions that might otherwise be dismissed as fringe. By arguing their cases in the court of public opinion as well as actual courts, Franks Ogilvie blurs the distinction between legal advocacy and PR campaign.

Critics argue that this playbook resembles the “astroturf” tactics uncovered in Nicky Hager’s investigative writings about NZ politics – where supposedly independent groups are coordinated by a few motivated operatives. A 2024 analysis by one commentator pointed out that many right-wing lobby groups in New Zealand “share key people and operate out of the same buildings, often for free”, supported by wealthy donors and international networks. Franks Ogilvie’s office, as noted, houses the Free Speech Union, just as property tycoon Sir Bob Jones donates office space to the Taxpayers’ Union. These overlapping hubs form a conservative ecosystem that amplifies each other’s messages – the law firm lends legal gravitas, the “union” claims mass membership, the lobby group provides funding and media spin. It’s a symbiotic arrangement effective at driving talking points into mainstream discussion, whether the topic is “forced gender ideology” or “government overreach.”

Backlash, Ethics Complaints, and Public Accountability

As Franks Ogilvie’s influence has grown, so too has public scrutiny of its methods. The Inflection Point NZ affair in particular sparked an immediate backlash not just from medical professionals but from legal peers and ethics watchdogs. Within days of the news breaking, multiple individuals filed complaints with the New Zealand Law Society, accusing Stephen Franks and his firm of breaching professional standards by effectively harassing healthcare workers. (One complainant, an environmental lawyer, argued that the mass mailing crossed a line into unprofessional conduct.) The Law Society has confirmed it is assessing the complaints, though any formal disciplinary process would occur behind closed doors. Separately, a complaint was lodged with police, suggesting the letters might constitute criminal intimidation – a long shot, legally, but an indication of the level of.

Media coverage of Franks Ogilvie’s work has not been kind. Prominent outlets like Radio New Zealand and the New Zealand Herald ran headlines on the firm’s “defiance” in the face of criticism. Talk radio host Sean Plunket (ironically an ally of Franks on free speech issues) pressed him in an interview to justify scaring doctors without any actual lawsuit in motion. Online, commentators and columnists accused the firm of acting as “culture war mercenaries” – using the law not to resolve disputes but to wage ideological battles. Even some fellow lawyers have expressed discomfort. On the legal blog LawFuel, a columnist mused that it is “bewildering” to see complaints aimed at a lawyer for following a client’s wishes, but acknowledged the firestorm of criticism was real and growing.

For his part, Stephen Franks seems to relish the role of provocateur. He has taken to social media platform X (Twitter) to mock the “hysteria” over the Inflection Point letter and double down on his stance. In one post, he implied that the “hostile attention” merely proved his client’s point about people refusing to confront uncomfortable truths., Such responses illustrate Franks’ combative style – rather than seek public sympathy, he often goes on the offensive, framing himself and his clients as principled underdogs persecuted by elites or the “woke mob.” This mirrors tactics used by some of the very groups he represents (for instance, Speak Up For Women and Family First both successfully cast themselves as victims of censorship in the past).

The ultimate test for Franks Ogilvie may lie in whether its campaigns lead to lasting change or trigger regulatory pushback. The Law Society’s investigation could, in theory, lead to a rebuke or guidelines about what lawyers should not do when representing activist causes. Likewise, if courts grow impatient with cases that appear more political theatre than substance, judges might award costs or dismiss claims in a way that discourages similar litigation. On the other hand, if Inflection Point NZ or LAVA were to win a legal victory, it would embolden the firm and its allies considerably. Public opinion is another arena: as stories spread of clinicians feeling bullied or of fringe views being given undue legitimacy, there is a risk of a reputational blowback against the firm and its clients. Already, protests have occurred – for example, community members mobilized outside Parliament in early 2025 in support of transgender healthcare, denouncing the “legal threats” from Franks Ogilvie.

It’s telling that Nicky Hager’s name has even been invoked in this context. The Taxpayers’ Union once speculated that Hager – New Zealand’s most famous investigative journalist, known for exposing shadowy political networks – was planning a book on them, which Hager denied, quipping “They’re not important enough for a book”. Yet the very fact the idea was floated shows that the activities of groups like the Taxpayers’ Union, Free Speech Union, and their enablers are increasingly seen as a subject worthy of investigation. Franks Ogilvie, given its central role, would undoubtedly feature in any such expose of the modern conservative movement’s infrastructure.

Conclusion

Franks Ogilvie presents a fascinating case study of a law firm operating at the nexus of law, politics, and ideology in New Zealand. Under Stephen Franks’ guidance, the firm has leveraged legal tools – from courtroom litigation to the drafting of intimidating letters – to advance a particular vision of society: one skeptical of progressive social change and keen to assert individual or “majority” rights against the claims of minorities and experts. In doing so, it has become a backbone for a network of conservative and libertarian causes, providing them not only legal representation but also strategic direction and a sheen of legitimacy.

To its supporters, Franks Ogilvie is performing a noble service: upholding free speech, checking government power, and defending those who feel silenced by political orthodoxy. To its critics, the firm is effectively weaponizing the law – using courts and legal threats as instruments of intimidation and delay, in order to stymie advancements in human rights and public health. What is clear is that the influence of Franks Ogilvie and Stephen Franks reaches far beyond their modest Wellington office. By connecting threads between political parties, advocacy groups, and legal action, they have helped weave a resilient network that is reshaping New Zealand’s public discourse from the right.

As battles over issues like transgender healthcare, hate speech regulation, and co-governance continue to heat up, Franks Ogilvie’s role will likely remain in the spotlight. The firm’s tactics raise profound questions: Where is the line between ethical advocacy and bad-faith intimidation? How should the legal profession respond when law firms become intertwined with political campaigns? And can the transparency of investigative journalism and public scrutiny serve as an effective counterweight to a coordinated ideological campaign? In the spirit of Nicky Hager’s investigations, shining a light on these connections is a first step in answering those questions. Franks Ogilvie’s story is a reminder that the arenas of law and politics are never truly separate – and that influence, once hidden, eventually comes into full view.