There is a Society of Labour lawyers, a Society of Conservative Lawyers, and I suspect more associated with other political parties.
There are law firms that specialise in trade union and employment law, and they often tend to be made up of Labour supporters (can't think why). One of the most well known ones was founded by a Labour MP, and another has birthed the career of many Labour MPs. Anecdotally, firms and departments specializing in agricultural law tend to be hotbeds of Toryism.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. People who spend their days dealing with the laws quite fairly tend to have views on what the law ought to be - and the practice of campaigning for changes in the law is called politics.
As Joshua points out, unless one is a sitting judge, there is no good reason to think a person cannot have political views and still be a good lawyer. If that were not so then there would be hardly any lawyers left.
What is surprising is that journalists don't appear to see the parallel with their own profession!
Joshua, with the greatest of respect your circulation is far less than that of the Spectator, will anyone publish a rebuttal of Ross Clark to an audience of equivalent size? As for John Reizenstein's comment surely there are many organisations where members are united on some issues but speak diversely on others: the church and political parties for example?
Joshua, if Garden Court Chambers is not to be treated as an entity, how is it that they can make a statement such as the one you cite ie “we take this opportunity as a chambers to make clear that we unequivocally condemn racism and antisemitism in all its forms”? To me, that looks like the kind of statement which a company or other organisation with a governing body and set of policies typically makes. Are Garden Court trying to have their cake and eat it?
Seems unlikely that such a statement would have been felt necessary if the shadow Secretary of State and his outriders in the media weren't actively trying to portray the judiciary as if the KGB had infiltrated it. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Because they are able, as a co-operative of individual practitioners, to agree between themselves to adopt that name for specified professional purposes and further to agree between themselves to use that name to make such a statement in particular. It doesn't make them an entity. It has become commonplace for journalists to refer to a barristers' chambers as a "firm". This is wrong
I agree with in particular Caroline Hutton and Oliver.
There is a Society of Labour lawyers, a Society of Conservative Lawyers, and I suspect more associated with other political parties.
There are law firms that specialise in trade union and employment law, and they often tend to be made up of Labour supporters (can't think why). One of the most well known ones was founded by a Labour MP, and another has birthed the career of many Labour MPs. Anecdotally, firms and departments specializing in agricultural law tend to be hotbeds of Toryism.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. People who spend their days dealing with the laws quite fairly tend to have views on what the law ought to be - and the practice of campaigning for changes in the law is called politics.
As Joshua points out, unless one is a sitting judge, there is no good reason to think a person cannot have political views and still be a good lawyer. If that were not so then there would be hardly any lawyers left.
What is surprising is that journalists don't appear to see the parallel with their own profession!
Joshua, with the greatest of respect your circulation is far less than that of the Spectator, will anyone publish a rebuttal of Ross Clark to an audience of equivalent size? As for John Reizenstein's comment surely there are many organisations where members are united on some issues but speak diversely on others: the church and political parties for example?
On your first point, I'm sure the Spectator will welcome responses on its website or for its print edition. On the second point, I agree.
Joshua, if Garden Court Chambers is not to be treated as an entity, how is it that they can make a statement such as the one you cite ie “we take this opportunity as a chambers to make clear that we unequivocally condemn racism and antisemitism in all its forms”? To me, that looks like the kind of statement which a company or other organisation with a governing body and set of policies typically makes. Are Garden Court trying to have their cake and eat it?
Seems unlikely that such a statement would have been felt necessary if the shadow Secretary of State and his outriders in the media weren't actively trying to portray the judiciary as if the KGB had infiltrated it. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
That's a fair question. I'll leave it to them to answer it.
Because they are able, as a co-operative of individual practitioners, to agree between themselves to adopt that name for specified professional purposes and further to agree between themselves to use that name to make such a statement in particular. It doesn't make them an entity. It has become commonplace for journalists to refer to a barristers' chambers as a "firm". This is wrong
Thanks for that response. I agree that subscribing to a common position does not detract from one's independence.