The Times has published a list of the top 100 ‘most powerful lawyers’ here. What a stupidly vague and pointless piece of space filling thatwas. Must have been a slow legal news day or something. It’s not even what it purports to be, since famous / notorious / good at working the media / working in the field of human rights do not necessarily equate with ‘powerful’. It’s very sloppy and I’m not the only one to notice. Rather than bleat on I’m going to suggest you read the comments on the online article, which are rather more entertaining and informative than the list itself.
What is the difference between a ‘QLR’ and a QLR?
It's Friday. I've been staring at a screen all day and my eyes have gone funny from scrolling through spreadsheets. I...
Ah, I heard about this. Lists are good for controversies but damn little use for much else. Isn’t that the grand thing about blogging, people can see your qualities in action rather taking the word of some list?