The Times reports: ” THE government is trying to change the law to protect the Prince of Wales from scrutiny when he intervenes in public affairs. Jack Straw, the justice secretary, has tabled an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill to impose a blanket ban on anyone disclosing information about Prince Charles, the Queen and Prince William. The move comes after a freedom of information (FoI) application revealed how Charles scuppered a £3 billion redevelopment of Chelsea Barracks. The property developers Christian and Nick Candy discovered that his aide met planning officials to discuss scrapping the scheme….”
Interestingly, the Times states: “Critics of Straw’s amendment say it would seriously undermine freedom of information laws. More than 60 MPs have signed an early day motion calling for it to be dropped. Clarence House said Charles had not lobbied for the changes.”
It is not unreasonable that the Monarch and monarchs in the queue, so to speak, should be able to talk in confidence – but I can see no good reason for exemption when, for example, Prince Charles explores wider issues which are wider than the strict and secret national interest. Surely the present exemptions are sufficient? Arise Sir Lord Jack?
The weekend brought news that Stephen Byers and other Labour ministers were fooled by a cash for info sting – to be screened on Channel 4 Dispatches on Monday night. Douglas Carswell MP raises a more important issue…
Who’s for hire in SW1?
“It’s not only soon-to-be ex-MPs who allegedly pass through the revolving door from government to business. The spotlight needs to be shone on unelected officials moving from Whitehall to the private sector. Given how enfeebled MPs and ministers have become, it’s technocrats and civil servants that are now seen as real high-value hires by lobbyists.Big corporate vested interests often prefer to have a former quangocrat, who took real decisions, on their payroll, rather than their ex-mouthpiece of a minister. Do unelected officials trade in their contact book? You bet….”
Magic circle tag redundant, Eversheds research finds
It is unusual for me to comment on a story in The Lawyer and Legal Week simply because they tend to focus on the business of lawyers making money as lawyers rather than on the law – which is fair enough. I cannot, however, resist an article where Eversheds commissions a report to confirm that its non-membership of the Magic Circle is just not a problem because ‘half of all clients think that the magic circle designation is redundant, with 94 per cent of them arguing that the profession should reclassify its peer groups.”‘
The usual blunderbuss statistics are chucked about – did the writers of the report really talk to ‘half of all clients’ (or even ALL law firm clients in the world so they could come up with ‘half of all clients’)… or just Evershed clients? Setting aside that those who go to McDonalds for a burger out of necessity may not be happy admitting they can’t afford to go to a Michelin star restaurant (and this is not to be taken as suggesting that non Magic Circle firms are the McDonalds of the legal world in case some under worked City lawyer is wondering whether to bone up on libel law) … but does it really matter? The market will decide. Eversheds is a huge and successful law firm – probably providing a wider range of legal services than those in the Magic Circle.
BUT.. of course it matters.. to those in the Magic Circle and some who practise law outside . Witness these quotes and comments… “Linklaters corporate partner Charles Jacobs argued that the magic circle firms will still continue to dominate strategic… “The crisis has shown us that the magic circle peer group still gets the lion’s share of the key deals,” he said. “Clients move down market in boom markets not in times of crisis for key transactions and advice. Would HM Treasury have gone to a non-magic circle firm for the Government bailout?”Just loved the words ‘clients move down market’. Then of course…the usual anonymous commentator – who knows… it may even be a ‘plant’..we can’t tell because they are ‘anonymous’….
Anonymous | 18-Mar-2010 2:57 pm
Is this “research commissioned by Eversheds” the most self-serving, steaming pile of bulls**t ever? Certainly sounds that way.
And then another ‘anonymous… but one, possibly with a good reason as he/she is ex Magic Circle…
Anonymous | 18-Mar-2010 4:13 pm
I see the lawyers at the Magic Circle have nothing better to do than comment on The Lawyer website. I wonder which client they’ve been charging for their time?
Here, here I say. As an ex Magic Circle lawyer that has spent time in-house, I couldn’t agree more with the findings. It’s about time people realised just how arrogant and exploitative the Magic Circle firms really are.
We British, sadly, are conditioned from birth to be feudally hierarchical, to make subtle distinctions of class, intelligence, tribe etc etc etc… we have State School v Public School, Oxbridge v Red Brick…. Magic Circle v ‘Lesser’ Firms…. will it ever change? I doubt it… Does it really matter? probably.. if the Magic Circle can still ull of the trick of charging more for their advice than others and general Counsel buy into the dream…
Surprised? I’m surprised if you are surprised. In the meantime, if law firms wish to keep ‘researchers’ busy by commissioning self wish fulfilment and vanity reports to keep themselves (and others) amused… why not?
How is i that Magic Circle lawyers can get away with charging more for giving advice on exactly the same law as every other lawyer has access to? They may argue that they employ the very best minds and bring ‘added value’. I’m not so sure… there are some pretty bright lawyers out there in non Magic Circle law firms… unless, if you are from a Magic Circle law firm, you can prove otherwise? Maybe the game is up and General Counsel have rumbled ’em and savings can be made, without a drop in quality, by going to a cheaper non Magic Circle law firm? – which, of course, is exactly (some say) what is happening and the big non MC firms may well take an even bigger slice of the pie in the brave new world coming.
We need a gagging law to protect us from Prince Charles!
“Jack Straw, the justice secretary, has tabled an amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill to impose a blanket ban on anyone disclosing information about Prince Charles, the Queen and Prince William”.
Shouldn’t Jack Straw have tabled an amendment to remove the blanket ban on prisoners votes instead?
couldn’t we impose a blanket ban on blanket bans? or blanket protests…