Podcasts about disciplinary proceedings

The espionage and obstruction case against Trump in Florida has been dismissed.There are almost a dozen people attending the Republican National Convention who convicted felon Trump  should not  interact with.Rudy Giuliani's bankruptcy case has been dismissed.The DOJ has busted a Russian AI bot farm that spread disinformation in the US and abroad.JD Vance has been selected as Trump's running mate.Trump has filed a motion for a new trial in his hush money case, arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity ruling makes the evidence and testimony in the case off-limits. Trump's lawyers argue that testimony from presidential advisors is inadmissible due to official communications and immunity.Jeffrey Clark attempts to remove his disciplinary proceedings to federal court. Thanks to ExpressVPN for supporting our show!Get an extra 3 months free. Expressvpn.com/cleanup. Thanks to ExpressVPN for supporting our show!Get an extra 3 months free. Expressvpn.com/cleanup. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotePete Strzokhttps://twitter.com/petestrzokThe Podcasthttps://twitter.com/aisle45podWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

Wednesday, March 27th, 2024Today, the Supreme Court Justices seem skeptical of the mifepristone case during oral arguments; the Department of Justice is investigating dozens of threats against election workers; the judge in the Manhattan DA's election interference case has issued a limited gag order after Trump goes after his daughter; Jeffrey Clarks disbarment hearings begin; Trump lawyer Mike Roman has been subpoenaed by prosecutors in Arizona; NBC News plans to drop Ronna McDaniel after a backlash for hiring her; plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news.Promo Codes:For a limited time, HomeChef is offering you 18 Free Meals, plus Free Shipping on your first box, and Free Dessert for Life. Go to  https://HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS. Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.Go to https://www.drinkAG1.com/dailybeans to try AG1 and get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D3 AND K2 AND 5 FREE AG1 Travel Packs with your first purchase.Our Guest Glenn Kirschner:https://twitter.com/glennkirschner2https://www.youtube.com/glennkirschner2https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/justice-matters-with-glenn-kirschner/id1526751534 NBC reverses decision to hire Ronna McDaniel after on-air backlash (pay wall)https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/03/26/nbc-drops-ronna-mcdaniel-backlashThe DOJ is investigating dozens of threats against election workershttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/doj-investigating-dozens-threats-election-workers-rcna145014Former Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark fights to save law license as disciplinary trial beginshttps://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/26/former-trump-doj-official-disciplinary-trial-001490604 Takeaways From the Abortion Pill Argumentshttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/abortion-pill-supreme-court-takeaways.htmlSubscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good News:The PACT Act and your VA benefitshttps://www.va.gov/resources/the-pact-act-and-your-va-benefitsThe Secret Apprentice: Dynasty Book 1, A High Fantasy Series (Amazon Link)https://a.co/d/7IZ36CMPublic Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/public-service#qualifyUpcoming Live Show Dateshttps://allisongill.com (tickets and show dates)Sunday, June 2nd – Chicago IL – Schubas TavernFriday June 14th – Philadelphia PA – City WinerySaturday June 15th – New York NY – City WinerySunday June 16th – Boston MA – City WineryWednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!) Live Show Ticket Links:Chicago, IL https://tinyurl.com/Beans-ChiPhiladelphia, PA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-PhillyNew York, NY https://tinyurl.com/Beans-NYCBoston, MA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-BosPortland, ORhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-PDXSeattle, WAhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-SEA Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Welcome to America's leading higher education podcast where we talk trending legal, regulatory and compliance matters - EdUp Legal!  YOUR host is ⁠Deborah Solmor⁠ In this episode, her guest is Tery Gonsalves, Partner at Alston & Bird and they discuss a recent California Supreme Court case that held that California law of fair procedure does not require a private institution to provide cross examination in a disciplinary proceeding for allegations of intimate partner violence.  Listen in to #EdUpLegal A link to some additional resources: ·      Education Advisory: California Supreme Court Says Cross-Examination Is Not Necessary for Campus Disciplinary Proceedings ·      Boermeester v. Carry ·      Alston & Bird: Tery Gonsalves' Bio Listen in each week to get the buzz on the trending higher education legal, regulatory, and compliance questions without the legalese.  We make higher education LegalEASY.   Join YOUR EdUp community at ⁠The EdUp Experience⁠!  We make Education YOUR business   

Welcome to America's leading higher education podcast where we talk trending legal, regulatory and compliance matters - EdUp Legal!  YOUR host is ⁠Deborah Solmor⁠ In this episode, her guest is Tery Gonsalves, Partner at Alston & Bird and they discuss a recent California Supreme Court case that held that California law of fair procedure does not require a private institution to provide cross examination in a disciplinary proceeding for allegations of intimate partner violence.  Listen in to #EdUpLegal A link to some additional resources: ·      Education Advisory: California Supreme Court Says Cross-Examination Is Not Necessary for Campus Disciplinary Proceedings ·      Boermeester v. Carry ·      Alston & Bird: Tery Gonsalves' Bio Listen in each week to get the buzz on the trending higher education legal, regulatory, and compliance questions without the legalese.  We make higher education LegalEASY.   Join YOUR EdUp community at ⁠The EdUp Experience⁠!  We make Education YOUR business   

On this day, June 21st, in legal history, flag burning was held to be protected by the First Amendment when the Supreme Court decision was handed down in Texas v. Johnson. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a Texas flag desecration law violated the First Amendment. The case revolved around Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned a U.S. flag during protests at the 1984 Republican National Convention. He was charged under a Texas law criminalizing flag desecration, but his conviction was overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.Justice William J. Brennan Jr., writing for the majority, argued that expressive conduct, including flag burning, is protected by the First Amendment. The Court rejected Texas' argument that it was trying to prevent breaches of the peace and protect the flag as a symbol of nationhood. Brennan emphasized that the government cannot ban expression simply because it may provoke violence or is disagreeable, as such expression lies at the core of First Amendment values.In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens focused on the value of the flag. Rehnquist likened flag burning to "fighting words," while Stevens expressed concern about the potential devaluation of the flag's symbolic nature.The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Texas v. Johnson decision a year later in United States v. Eichman (1990) by striking down the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which was enacted in response to the earlier ruling. Since then, flag burning has been a contentious issue, with repeated attempts in Congress to overturn the Court's decision through a constitutional amendment. However, these attempts have fallen short of the required votes.Stephen Swedlow, a former partner at Quinn Emanuel, made a somewhat surprising career move by leaving the prestigious Big Law firm to become a traffic court judge in Cook County, Illinois. Swedlow, who had a successful career handling major litigation cases and earning millions of dollars, decided to pursue public service and put his skills to use in the judiciary. Partners at top law firms typically stay until retirement, but Swedlow chose to step down and invest nearly $1 million of his own money to serve as a judge at the lowest levels of the state's judiciary.In his new role, Swedlow presides over DUI trials and traffic violations, handling as many as 300 cases a day, mostly through Zoom. Despite the change from high-profile billion-dollar court fights to the less glamorous traffic court, Swedlow finds fulfillment in the human drama and the opportunity to contribute to the legal system. He has adjusted to the administrative tasks involved in organizing Zoom meetings and managing the proceedings.During his time at Quinn Emanuel, Swedlow led significant cases, including defending Qualcomm against Apple in a trade secrets lawsuit and representing health insurance companies in a suit over unpaid Obamacare subsidies. The firm could potentially earn $185 million in fees from one of Swedlow's cases, but the final payment is pending appeals.Swedlow's decision to transition to the bench surprised some colleagues, but he expressed a desire for a better work-life balance and more time with his children. Despite the substantial pay cut, he felt he had already made enough money and was ready for a new challenge in public service. Swedlow hopes to become a civil trial court judge in the future, but for now, he is working his way up the judicial ladder, handling small claims, personal injury, and eviction cases.This story is offered here just as an example of a potential landing place for folks looking to make a move. Top Quinn Emanuel Partner Starts Over as Traffic Court JudgeDisciplinary proceedings have begun against John Eastman, the lawyer behind former President Donald Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Eastman faces 11 disciplinary charges related to his development of a controversial legal strategy aimed at helping Trump stay in power by disrupting the counting of state electoral votes. The strategy involved encouraging Vice President Mike Pence to consider slates of electors filed by pro-Trump activists in seven states, even though no legislatures had adopted Eastman's plan. Pence's aides strongly resisted the plan, arguing that he lacked the legal authority and warning that courts would not uphold it.Eastman's plan was designed to avoid going to court and instead relied on key actors asserting their power to carry out the preferred actions. He argues that his advice was a tenable interpretation of the law and that a good-faith dispute should not result in professional consequences. During the proceedings, Eastman defended his claims of voter fraud in Georgia and his suggestion that the 2020 election in Wisconsin could be decertified and Joe Biden removed. Despite the chaos that ensued, Eastman expressed no regret or misgivings about his actions.The disciplinary proceedings could potentially result in Eastman losing his license to practice law in California.John Eastman's plan to keep Trump in power faces a reckoning, as authorities seek his disbarment - POLITICOTrump Lawyer Eastman's License in Jeopardy at Disciplinary TrialConservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has written a commentary in the Wall Street Journal purporting to defend himself against allegations of ethical misconduct raised by news outlet ProPublica. Alito addressed the "charges" made by ProPublica journalists that he failed to recuse himself from cases involving entities connected to hedge fund founder Paul Singer and failed to report certain gifts on mandatory financial disclosure forms. Alito dismissed both charges as invalid. He explained that the private flight to Alaska, which took place in 2008, was provided by Singer, who allowed him to occupy an unoccupied seat. A moment's reflection reveals this to be a nonsensical statement – of course the seat was unoccupied, what is the alternative, he sat on Singer's lap for the ride? Does it only give the appearance of impropriety if someone was booted from the seat in favor of Alito? Alito stated that he stayed in a modest one-room unit at the King Salmon Lodge and considered accommodations and transportation for social events as non-reportable gifts, as commonly interpreted by justices. He further stated that he only carried on conversations with Singer a handful of times at events attended by other people as well, like dinner parties. He emphasized that the flight to Alaska was the only instance where he accepted transportation for a purely social event. Alito asserted that he had no obligation to recuse himself from cases connected to Singer and claimed he was unaware of Singer's connection in a particular case heard by the Supreme Court in 2014. The court has faced ethics controversies recently, and public confidence in the judiciary has declined according to opinion polls.US Supreme Court's Alito defends against ethics questions | ReutersJustice Samuel Alito: ProPublica Misleads Its Readers - WSJJustice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the CourtCoinbase, the prominent cryptocurrency exchange, launched a unique legal defense strategy months before it became the target of a major crackdown by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The company filed briefs as amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," in two other crypto-related lawsuits brought by the SEC, aiming to shape court rulings on key legal questions that are now central to its own case. While amicus briefs are common at the U.S. Supreme Court, they are filed in only 0.1% of cases in federal trial courts. Coinbase's strategy involved trying to influence legal precedents in its favor, even though the rulings in those cases would not be binding in its own lawsuit. The company argued that the SEC lacks authority to regulate certain digital assets as securities and criticized the SEC's misapplication of the legal test for determining securities status. Coinbase also contended that the SEC failed to provide clear guidelines, violating participants' right to due process. The SEC recently sued Coinbase, alleging that it operated an unregistered exchange and offered securities without proper registration. Coinbase's legal push reflects the industry's efforts to shape the regulatory landscape and establish favorable legal interpretations for cryptocurrencies.Coinbase waged unusual legal defense ahead of SEC's crypto crackdown | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Streaming now, the latest episode of Blackstone Chambers' The Sports Law Podcast with host, Nick De Marco KC, on Disciplinary Proceedings in Sport.Join panellists as they dive into explaining what disciplinary proceedings are and how they differ from other legal proceedings, tips for preparing for a sports' disciplinary proceedings, and what important developments we can expect to see in the future.Our expert panel comprises:Catherine Beloff, is the Director of Legal, Governance and Business Partners at the British Horseracing Authority (BHA). Previously, in private practice, she was a senior member of DLA's Global Sports. Media and Entertainment Team. Catherine is also the Chair of the British Association for Sport and the Law (BASL)Geoff Cunningham is Head of Legal (Regulatory) at the Football League (or EFL). Before joining the EFL, Geoff was in private practice acting on many big sports disciplinary cases.Alistair McHenry, is the Head of Sport at Tyr.Law where he acts for governing bodies, clubs, players and athletes across regulatory, contractual, financial, disciplinary and selection issues. He is also a Sport Resolutions Arbitrator and a Director of BASL.James Segan KC is a leading silk at Blackstone Chambers. He acts in sports law matters both commercial and regulatory. James is often instructed in disciplinary hearings and has appeared for a number of different governing bodies including in football, rugby union, cricket and horse racing. He is recognised as a leading practitioner in the field by Chambers and Partners, Legal 500 and Who's Who Legal. He is co-editor of "Challenging Sports Governing Bodies", a contributor to "sport: Law and Practice" and to "Football and the Law".

And while we're on the topic of sanctions, Rudy Giuliani can no longer practice law ANYWHERE for the time being, and the Kraken lawyers are all set to receive their sanctions as well. Turns out there are consequences for lying your ass off in official court filings, if you do it long enough. So listen in for a detailed breakdown of some truly terrible lawyering! Links: Rudy suspended in DC, DC Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings, where to listen to the sanctions hearing, Detroit sanctions motion, Trump sues Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, Save the Constitution From Big Tech - WSJ, Yale Professor Jed Rubenfeld Suspended for Sexual Harassment

Judges, as all other people, sometimes misbehave. In that case, a procedure needs to be in place to examine if a sanction is required and, if so, to impose it.  Disciplinary procedures, however, can be misused by an authoritarian government as blunt yet efficient tool to force the independent judiciary into submission. The most striking case in point is, once again: Poland. Judge Igor Tuleya is facing removal from office and worse for having crossed the government once too often in his discharge of his judicial duties. And he is not the only one. Our distinguished guests for this week's episode are: NINA BETETTO, a judge of the Slovenian Supreme Court and the President of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE),  ADAM BODNAR, the outgoing Human Rights Commissioner of the Republik of Poland, and SUSANA DE LA SIERRA, a professor of administrative law at the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Toledo, Spain.   

The Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society held a virtual debate between Samantha K. Harris, Esq. and Brett A. Sokolow, Esq. on whether the recently devised Department of Education Title IX regulations were needed, and if so, whether the revised regulations will result in fairer Title IX disciplinary proceedings. Ms. Harris argued that the revised regulations were needed and that they will help ensure that both the accused and accuser are treated fairly during Title IX proceedings. Mr. Sokolow argued that the revised Title IX regulations overreach, overprotect due process at the expense of victims' rights, and undermine the equitable purposes of Title IX itself. Samantha K. Harris, Esq., Senior Fellow, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education & Counsel, Mudrick & Zucker, P.C.'s national Campus Discipline and Title IX PracticeBrett A. Sokolow, Esq., Chair, TNGModerator: David R. Struwe, Esq., Litigator, Schnader Harrison Segal & LewisIntroduction: Matthew J. Hank, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson PC & President, The Federalist Society, Philadelphia Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Dr Ian Freckelton QC discusses disciplinary proceedings undertaken against legal and health practitioners before VCAT. He identifies that in such proceeding the stakes are high; claims made against a practitioner can have resounding effects on their reputation and commercial viability, their family life, and their physical and mental health.

Judge Gerhard Reissner of the International Association of Judges speaks with the Global Judicial Integrity Network about the work of international associations in raising awareness to counter threats to judicial independence.

Judge Gerhard Reissner of the International Association of Judges speaks with the Global Judicial Integrity Network about the work of international associations in raising awareness to counter threats to judicial independence.

It is common for an employee to go off sick during a disciplinary process. In this episode, Daniel Barnett shares his suggestions on how to make sure the disciplinary investigation continues so far as possible in the event of an employee’s absence. We cover what to do when in these situations: if an employee goes off sick after you launch a disciplinary process if an employee puts in a grievance after you’ve started disciplinary proceedings Get high-level access to barrister Daniel Barnett, for answers to your most complex HR and employment law problems. Visit http://www.hrinnercircle.co.uk for more information. Thank you for listening and please leave a review if you found this helpful. Subscribe to Employment Law Matters to automatically receive new episodes every Tuesday. If you have a question, or any feedback, please email podcast@danielbarnett.co.uk or tweet @daniel_barnett .© Employment Law Services Limited. Any information on this podcast is for general guidance only. Please see our full terms and disclaimer.

The Former Officer Regulations 2017 came into force on 15th December 2017. The Regulations have made a number of important changes to police misconduct procedures, allowing for misconduct investigations and proceedings that could have led to dismissal to be taken to their conclusion, notwithstanding the retirement or resignation of the police officer.Is a former officer required to engage with the investigation? Does the former officer have to attend a hearing? What are the implications if the Panel finds that a former officer would have been dismissed if he or she had still been serving?Solicitor Daniel Berke and Gerry Boyle Queen’s Counsel discuss the conditions under which these Regulations apply to former officers and their implications to those officers no longer serving.

2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) - Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series – Liability and Innovation: Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Medical Perspectives - Associate Professor Megan Munsie (The University of Melbourne, Australia): Setting the standards: need for action to curb the big business of selling stem cells

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Regulator? 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) - Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series, Liability and Innovation: Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Legal Perspectives - Dr Paula Case (University of Liverpool, UK) Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Regulator?: Interrogating Causal Narratives in Defensive Medicine Research

Professional Standards for Innovation - 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) – Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series, Liability and Innovation: The Effect of Disciplinary Proceedings and Innovation: Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Medical Perspectives - Professor Wendy Rogers, Professor of Clinical Ethics, Macquarie University. Topic: Professional Standards for Innovation

The effect of disciplinary proceedings: concluding comments - 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) – Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series – Liability and Innovation. The Effect of Disciplinary Proceedings: Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Legal Perspectives - Dan Matthias Executive Director, Legal Services, Office of the Health Ombudsman expert

The effect of disciplinary proceedings: The disciplinary response when expert evidence departs from widely accepted professional practice - 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) - Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series, Liability and Innovation. The Effect of Disciplinary Proceedings: Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Legal Perspectives - Adjunct Professor Bill Madden (QUT, Special Counsel Carol O’Dea Lawyers): The disciplinary response when expert evidence departs from widely accepted professional practice.

Regulating Innovation: advocating for codes of practice - 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) - Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series, Liability and Innovation. The Effect of Disciplinary Proceedings: Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Legal Perspectives - Professor Cameron Stewart (The University of Sydney, Australia): Regulating Innovation: advocating for codes of practice

The role of tribunals in regulating behaviour - 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) - Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series, Liability and Innovation. Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Legal Perspectives - Associate Professor Bernadette Richards (The University of Adelaide, Australia): Innovation and Professionalism: The role of tribunals in regulating behaviour

Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards - 2017 Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) - Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Seminar Series, Liability and Innovation. The Effect of Disciplinary Proceedings and Innovation: Medical Innovation, Regulation and Disciplinary Proceedings: Medical Perspectives - Associate Professor Matthew Spittal (The University of Melbourne, Australia): Outcomes of notifications to health practitioner boards: a retrospective cohort study

Innovation stifled by law: real or imaginary?

The Effect of Disciplinary Proceedings and Innovation

Innes Clark, Abigail Vipond and Kate McGarrity look at a recent case where the role of HR was under the spotlight. 

Dr Katie Elkin, Associate Commissioner, Legal and Strategic Relations at the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner, discusses the considerable change in the design of health professional regulation throughout Australia and New Zealand since the beginning of the last decade. As well as ushering in significant structural reform, the legislation in both countries is now more explicit regarding its public protection objectives. However, the degree to which regulatory decision-making is actually consistent with public protection considerations is unclear. Through two major empirical analyses of complaints and disciplinary mechanisms in Australian and New Zealand, Dr Elkin has explored these issues and how they impact at throughout the regulatory journey, from registration through to disciplinary sanction. 13 May 2014

Dr Katie Elkin, Associate Commissioner, Legal and Strategic Relations at the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner, discusses the considerable change in the design of health professional regulation throughout Australia and New Zealand since the beginning of the last decade. As well as ushering in significant structural reform, the legislation in both countries is now more explicit regarding its public protection objectives. However, the degree to which regulatory decision-making is actually consistent with public protection considerations is unclear. Through two major empirical analyses of complaints and disciplinary mechanisms in Australian and New Zealand, Dr Elkin has explored these issues and how they impact at throughout the regulatory journey, from registration through to disciplinary sanction. 13 May 2014

Dr Katie Elkin, Associate Commissioner, Legal and Strategic Relations at the Office of the Health and Disability Commissioner, discusses the considerable change in the design of health professional regulation throughout Australia and New Zealand since the beginning of the last decade. As well as ushering in significant structural reform, the legislation in both countries is now more explicit regarding its public protection objectives. However, the degree to which regulatory decision-making is actually consistent with public protection considerations is unclear. Through two major empirical analyses of complaints and disciplinary mechanisms in Australian and New Zealand, Dr Elkin has explored these issues and how they impact at throughout the regulatory journey, from registration through to disciplinary sanction. 13 May 2014