Comments on: “Human rights barrister” Amal Clooney

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 17:21:43 +0000

I strongly suspect that banning Holocaust denial is not only unnecessary but counterproductive as it allows denialists to argue, not unreasonably, that their opponents are compelled to ban their ideas because they are unable to defeat them using evidence and argument.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 02:09:26 +0000

On that very point, note the interesting Sam Schulman piece linked here about a week ago:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/great-free-speech-experiment_823845.html

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 01:50:16 +0000

If one accepts the idea behind Holocaust-denial bans, Clooney’s support for an Armenian-genocide-denial ban is quite reasonable (except to nationalist Turks).

Personally, I consider Holocaust-denial bans as an unnecessary first step down a slippery slope. Holocaust-denial is legal in the USA, yet nowhere else (outside Israel) are Holocaust deniers so isolated and despised.

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 23:48:31 +0000

I imagine that one way in which a firm can acquire a reputation for representing one side in a cab rank rule system is through the public statements of its members on relevant issues, including the early cases that it handles. Prospective clients are, presumably, unlikely to approach a firm with a reputation for hostility to their side.

It is not surprising to see advocates of human rights and civil rights clash since human rights and civil liberties overlap but take different perspectives which bring them into conflict in some cases. Civil libertarians are generally focussed on individual rights, while human rights advocates are often more interested in group rights. Where individual rights conflict with group rights, the will find themselves in opposition.

By: Joy

Joy — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 23:23:30 +0000

Robertson leads this Chamber. He is QC and those who gave not been designated QC are equivalent to junior lawyers in the US.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 19:19:31 +0000

Thanks for clarification re: use of the word “partner.” Notwithstanding the UK’s traditional cab-rank (take all comers) rule, many discussions of Doughty Street Chambers do suggest that it is oriented toward progressive causes and clients and would be less likely to be found representing causes and clients on the other side. Perhaps British readers can help our American audience sort out how a reputation of this sort (if accurate) can arise under a formally neutral set of rules.

By: Jeff Richardson

Jeff Richardson — Fri, 30 Jan 2015 18:46:04 +0000

There’s a misunderstanding here of how the UK bar works.

Barristers are open to take both sides of cases (there’s no such things as “plaintiff’s” or “defendant’s” lawyers) and a “human rights lawyer” is somebody who specialises in human rights law not an advocate for human rights.

And Clooney and Robertson are not partners – they are both self-employed independent contractors who share office space and facilities