It doesn’t matter what issue Woolfson is advising Abramovich (or a linked entity) about or in which jurisdiction. The existence of that client relationship means Woolfson cannot properly contend that it’s right for him to advise the opposition on its policy of depriving his own client of a huge amount of money. If Woolfson thinks he can compartmentalise his brain so as to avoid any influence of the client relationship on what advice he gives to the Tory opposition, he’s deluding himself. He can’t erect a ‘Chinese Wall’ inside his skull. That would be so even if his relationship with the shadow cabinet were analysed as a lawyer-client one. However, that analysis would be over-simplistic in that there’s a public and political dimension to a shadow law officer advising the official opposition. In order to do so, Woolfson needs to be independent, and to be seen as such. For instance, Woolfson could not sit as an arbitrator or mediator in a case in England in which Abramovich was a party, whilst acting for him in Jersey, because he would not be independent. The same applies to him as a shadow law officer advising the shadow cabinet.
Has the PM been quoted accurately? I can't believe that he, a lawyer himself, actually said, 'Of course, I accept that lawyers have to represent all sorts of crime.' Surely they don't represent crime, or criminal activity, but persons charged with having committed a crime. Maybe the heat of PMQ got to him?
When the world is going to pot, the spectacle of our ‘leaders’ squabbling like this is tragic. The PM should steer clear of trying to score political points on legal niceties.
It is indeed. The bigger question is whether we want to encourage people with successful careers outside politics — lawyers in particular — to take an active role in the House of Lords. If not, the only lawyers we'll have left in parliament are people who've devoted most of their lives to politics.
Nah. This will likely harm the Tories a little bit whenever Abramovich's name comes up. There isn't an upside. If Badenoch truly welcomes her Shadow AG working for Abramovich then she's daft. And there's hardly a shortage of lawyers in the Lords. And, by the way, even Starmer hasn't devoted most of his life to politics; that's his main problem.
I am not sure I am with you on this. A few comments.
This is politics not legal precision.
Whether a person is in the shadow cabinet or advising it is arguably a distinction without a difference, at least in common perception.
It is a genuine question whether it is appropriate for the shadow attorney to advise a person who is in serious dispute (not just a simple legal issue) with the UK Government whatever they are advising them on. It's different from a lawyer with no particular Parliamentary role or none at all providing advice, as Starmer accepted. There is an issue of perception here.
What relevance does the veterans issue have?
Badenoch's post is not just in "unusually strong terms" it's offensive and absurd.
It doesn’t matter what issue Woolfson is advising Abramovich (or a linked entity) about or in which jurisdiction. The existence of that client relationship means Woolfson cannot properly contend that it’s right for him to advise the opposition on its policy of depriving his own client of a huge amount of money. If Woolfson thinks he can compartmentalise his brain so as to avoid any influence of the client relationship on what advice he gives to the Tory opposition, he’s deluding himself. He can’t erect a ‘Chinese Wall’ inside his skull. That would be so even if his relationship with the shadow cabinet were analysed as a lawyer-client one. However, that analysis would be over-simplistic in that there’s a public and political dimension to a shadow law officer advising the official opposition. In order to do so, Woolfson needs to be independent, and to be seen as such. For instance, Woolfson could not sit as an arbitrator or mediator in a case in England in which Abramovich was a party, whilst acting for him in Jersey, because he would not be independent. The same applies to him as a shadow law officer advising the shadow cabinet.
Has the PM been quoted accurately? I can't believe that he, a lawyer himself, actually said, 'Of course, I accept that lawyers have to represent all sorts of crime.' Surely they don't represent crime, or criminal activity, but persons charged with having committed a crime. Maybe the heat of PMQ got to him?
When the world is going to pot, the spectacle of our ‘leaders’ squabbling like this is tragic. The PM should steer clear of trying to score political points on legal niceties.
Seems naive for the shadow AG to think this was going to go well. Nasty game, politics
It is indeed. The bigger question is whether we want to encourage people with successful careers outside politics — lawyers in particular — to take an active role in the House of Lords. If not, the only lawyers we'll have left in parliament are people who've devoted most of their lives to politics.
Nah. This will likely harm the Tories a little bit whenever Abramovich's name comes up. There isn't an upside. If Badenoch truly welcomes her Shadow AG working for Abramovich then she's daft. And there's hardly a shortage of lawyers in the Lords. And, by the way, even Starmer hasn't devoted most of his life to politics; that's his main problem.
I am not sure I am with you on this. A few comments.
This is politics not legal precision.
Whether a person is in the shadow cabinet or advising it is arguably a distinction without a difference, at least in common perception.
It is a genuine question whether it is appropriate for the shadow attorney to advise a person who is in serious dispute (not just a simple legal issue) with the UK Government whatever they are advising them on. It's different from a lawyer with no particular Parliamentary role or none at all providing advice, as Starmer accepted. There is an issue of perception here.
What relevance does the veterans issue have?
Badenoch's post is not just in "unusually strong terms" it's offensive and absurd.
Wolfson says it's not a dispute with the UK government.
I mentioned the veterans issue only to explain what Badenoch was referring to.
Understood. But Badenoch's point (in context just a defence of the shadow attorney general as a good guy) doesn't address Starmer's issue.