By Tracy Neal, Open Justice reporter of 
Lawyer Sue Grey (left) has been fined and ordered to pay costs over a "slip-up" which saw her identify a baby whose name was suppressed. Photo: RNZ Mediawatch
The "sloppy" use of a child's name during an interview about the use of vaccinated blood in life-saving surgery has cost a lawyer $15,690.
Nelson-based lawyer Sue Grey has been fined $1500 and ordered to pay $14,190 in costs and reimbursements associated with proceedings brought against her, after she referred to a child whose identity was suppressed.
Grey hit national headlines during the Covid pandemic and the rise of anti-vaccination activism.
Grey was the spokesperson for the parents of a baby at the centre of a standoff over the use of vaccinated people's blood in what doctors argued was necessary, life-saving surgery.
Grey made mistakes during two online interviews.
The first interview was with former broadcaster Liz Gunn, livestreamed on a social media platform.
On two occasions, Grey realised she had used an abbreviated form of the mother's name inadvertently.
The second interview was the next day with a Canadian interviewer when Grey mentioned the baby's shortened name four times.
It attracted a complaint from lawyers for Te Whatu Ora/Health NZ, which landed Grey before the tribunal that oversees lawyers' conduct.
The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found last year that Grey's action amounted to unsatisfactory conduct in that it fell below an expected standard, but it was not deliberate.
It followed similar action the year before when Grey's comments about Covid-19 vaccines did not amount to misconduct because they were made as a private citizen.
In a penalty decision released this month, the tribunal emphasised the importance of practitioners upholding court orders regarding the suppression of names and identifying details, and had Grey deliberately breached the order, there would have been a finding of misconduct.
The tribunal found that Grey had endeavoured to comply with suppression and the slip occurred in the course of long interviews and in one case, the late hour in which it was conducted.
It said that by the end of the two lengthy interviews, Grey had become somewhat "sloppy" and let down her guard, thereby entering into professional error in breaching the suppression orders.
"While we accepted that Ms Grey had deliberately taken on the role of family spokesperson because of her fear that her clients might themselves breach the suppression order, given their keenness to make the public aware of their situation and the reason for the stand that they were taking, we noted that in adopting this role, Ms Grey had made herself vulnerable to the sorts of errors which occurred," the tribunal said.
It also said among a list of mitigating factors that Grey's clients supported her and it was relevant they did not wish to see her disciplined for her errors, as was the fact that the family's names and that of the child were already in the public domain, and that there had been a photograph of the family in the NZ Herald.
Grey said at the hearing that at one level it was a case of "the horse having bolted", given the frenzied interest in the family's plight and public protests outside a court that included photos of the child's face on placards.
The tribunal responded then by saying the suppression order aimed to stop what was already in the public domain from travelling further, for the sake of the child in the future.
The tribunal said in deciding on a penalty that it did not consider that full indemnity costs were appropriate in this matter, and ordered a "somewhat reduced contribution" to the Standards Committee costs, which came in at a little over $25,000.
Grey was fined and ordered to pay a $10,000 contribution to the committee's costs and $4190 in tribunal costs.
NZME has approached Grey for comment.
* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
