The Student Room Group

Clifford Chance Islamist rant

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Classical Liberal
It's damage limitation. When a fire starts, the best thing to do is contain it and starve it of oxygen - that's what they're doing.

You seem to think that CC partners could give a rats ass about the development of their trainees or have some grand plan for them.... they don't


Mm. You obviously did not take my point. It is just possible that there is an international perspective to this thing in terms of how CC clients across the world may view the ignoble cutting loose of a lad expressing an opinion about his beliefs.

That's sweet though that you think that I think giant law firms care about their trainees! It's quite green of you - that thought had not occurred to me. When things go wrong in the work place, no-one gives a stuff about the unfortunate whose actions caused all the headache!! You will find that out no doubt
Why be so rude? I thought you had some sort of standing around here. J-SP makes a lot of helpful comments on these forums - why be so rude about it? Or, you could, say, if you did know something about employment law, and surely you must, or you would not be so definite, explain it in a helpful way

hugs

Original post by young_guns
Clearly.

The Equality Act would only be relevant if by sacking him they were treating him more harshly than they would have treated a comparator (say, a white person) who made a ranty video of that sort.

There really is no objective basis for an EA discrimination claim
Reply 22
Original post by happyinthehaze
Why be so rude? I thought you had some sort of standing around here. J-SP makes a lot of helpful comments on these forums - why be so rude about it? Or, you could, say, if you did know something about employment law, and surely you must, or you would not be so definite, explain it in a helpful way

hugs


Sorry if I was a bit rude, it really irritates me when people make assertions about something they don't really know much about, and proceed as if what they're saying is self-evident rather than speculation that turns out to be wrong.

You're right though, I shouldn't have been so narky, I'll edit my comment
Reply 23
Original post by happyinthehaze
Mm. You obviously did not take my point. It is just possible that there is an international perspective to this thing in terms of how CC clients across the world may view the ignoble cutting loose of a lad expressing an opinion about his beliefs.


I think you're mistaken in your view of the international situation. CC's Arab clients would not stick their neck out and damage their own business interests merely for a young trainee who has exhibited poor judgement.

As I said, the Arab oil sheikhs value discretion. They also tend to be very wary of public displays of extremism.

If there are any international considerations, it's that Clifford Chance's Jewish/Israeli clients might not appreciate it if they keep this guy on.
Reply 24
Here is the video if you haven't seen it. That guy was exercising his right of free speech he didn't say anything violent it's just his opinion.
Reply 25
Original post by J-SP
I'd disagree - I think it would be easy to find comparisons of the nature.


Posted from TSR Mobile


:lol: It's not "comparison", it's "comparator". Tbh your saying you disagree is like a taxi driver telling an accountant he disagrees about the nature of a particular tax assessment.

Just wanting something to be the case doesn't make it so. It would probably help if you had some basic knowledge about the Equality Act
Original post by al_94
Here is the video if you haven't seen it. That guy was exercising his right of free speech he didn't say anything violent it's just his opinion.


Wow ...

Ladies and gents who were worried they might not be smart enough to join firms like Chance, REJOICE! They take anyone, apparently.

Hopefully CC have the good sense to drop him at the end of his training.
Reply 27
Original post by J-SP
Wow - you are rude! I'm sorry I didn't follow your exact words correctly.

But I'll stick to what I am saying, despite your patronising tone. There may not be a clear cut case for discrimination, but there will be a lot going on to check that definitely isn't the case/cannot be inferred in anyway from any information to hand, which we haven't got.


It has nothing to do with my words, we're talking about the words used in the act and in the caselaw. Do you realise how laughable it is for you to say, "I realise I don't have a clue about s13 EA 2010 discrimination, but I'm going to have an opinion about it anyway".

It's even stranger in the sense that the treatment which you are asserting would give rise to a claim (the trainee being dismissed) hasn't even occurred yet!

You might think I'm being rude, but I think you're being puerile. It's bizarre that a solicitor would be so cavalier about an area for which their knowledge is clearly non-existent.

In any case, let's take a look. s13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 says;

A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A would treat others


So there are two elements; the discriminatory act has to be because of the protected characteristic (in this case, religion), and A must have treated B less favourably than they would have treated others in an identical situation.

So say CC dismissed this trainee for gross misconduct; by publishing such an inflammatory statement that calls non-Muslims "kaffirs", the trainee has breached an implied term of trust and confidence by bringing the firm into disrepute, and he has destroyed the trust and confidence of his non-Muslim colleagues by using the "kaffir" slur thus making it impossible for them to go on working with him.

The trainee tries to bring an s13 claim. In this case the protected characteristic is religion. Did A (Clifford Chance) treat B (trainee) less favourably (dismiss him) because of his religion?

No. They dismissed him because he made an inflammatory statement that brought the firm into disrepute. CC has plenty of Muslim associates who they don't dismiss for being Muslim, and nothing about Islam inherently requires someone to make an inflammatory public statement. So we've established that any claim wouldn't meet the first limb of the test.

Looking at the second limb, was that treatment less favourable in comparison to others. So a comparator would be a non-Muslim who made an inflammatory public statement. Luckily for us, we have a perfect comparator; a Clifford Chance trainee a couple of years ago was filmed drunk on a video that was uploaded to youtube, and he said "I work for a City law firm, I **** people over for money". They dismissed him.

Even if we don't accept that comparator and construct a hypothetical comparator of a non-Muslim colleague who made a statement where they referred to colleagues of another religion by an inflammatory word (say a Jewish trainee made a video complaining about non-Jews and referring to them as "goyim") then it demonstrates clearly that the material element is the inflammatory statement, not the religion of B.

So in summary, there's nothing in it. Any such claim would be laughed out of court.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 28
Original post by J-SP
You seemed to have missed my point though.


I haven't missed any point. You asserted there was a basis for a discrimination claim.

I have demonstrated you are wrong.
Reply 29
Original post by J-SP
You clearly have. Thanks for the clarity though on the legal points though, it's helpful.


No problem. I apologise if I come on a bit strong, it does irritate me when I feel someone is speaking about something for which they lack knowledge but not strong opinions.

I can understand that CC has taken the very sensible decision to, as someone said above, deprive this issue of the oxygen of publicity and they will let him go at the end of his training contract.

I don't think that has anything to do with fearing a discrimination claim or worrying about what their Muslim clients will think (given they will let him go down the track anyway), it's simply a matter of ensuring the media spotlight moves on before they proceed.
Reply 30
Woooow this is awkward.

I only got to 8 minutes in until I had to turn it off. To be honest it just knocks me sick.
Reply 31
Original post by Skip_Snip
Wow ...

Ladies and gents who were worried they might not be smart enough to join firms like Chance, REJOICE! They take anyone, apparently.

Hopefully CC have the good sense to drop him at the end of his training.


Wooohooooo! I am getting a training contract!

And in my spare time I'm going to post videos to youtube of myself dancing around in my thong because why not.
Reply 32
Original post by J-SP
It irritates me too - I've never said I was a legal expert but I think I'm entitled to an opinion on the matter.


I can't remember who said it, maybe it was Michael Dukakis or Gore Vidal, who said "You're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts". If you don't know the facts, then having an opinion on it simply makes you opinionated.

Although not to this extreme, I've seen and been part of similar situations and you will always prepare for the worst case scenario and the "what if".


One should prepare for the worse plausible case. And one also shouldn't allow fear of being sued for discrimination prevent you from making justifiable business decisions where it involves an ethnic minority, otherwise you're basically saying ethnic minorities should never be sacked even for justifiable reasons.

In fact, in this sort of case what they would do is ensure they were scrupulously fair in following procedure and documenting it. There would be no possibility for a discrimination claim, and even in a parrallel universe where the law was different, so what? They pay 50,000 pounds to get rid of a risky trainee who could cause problems. That's not an unreasonable expense.
I thought you were going to stop being so rude Young Guns Having some Fun, but you didn't!

Also, in my last post pointing out you were rude, you said you were a bit narky, then going to say you would edit your comment!! Rather than apologize *sigh*

And I distinctly get the impression that J-SP is not really all that grateful for your erudite educated efficient strike-downs of lawyer to non-lawyer about the law...I think she was just *backing away slowly without making any sudden moves and reaching behind her for the door while smiling and nodding*





Original post by young_guns
No problem. I apologise if I come on a bit strong, it does irritate me when I feel someone is speaking about something for which they lack knowledge but not strong opinions.

I can understand that CC has taken the very sensible decision to, as someone said above, deprive this issue of the oxygen of publicity and they will let him go at the end of his training contract.

I don't think that has anything to do with fearing a discrimination claim or worrying about what their Muslim clients will think (given they will let him go down the track anyway), it's simply a matter of ensuring the media spotlight moves on before they proceed.
Reply 34
Original post by happyinthehaze
I thought you were going to stop being so rude Young Guns Having some Fun, but you didn't!


My username is a reference to the Emilio Estevez / Kiefer Sutherland flick, I had no idea about the Wham song. Funky! If slightly camp (it is George Michael I suppose)

Also, in my last post pointing out you were rude, you said you were a bit narky, then going to say you would edit your comment!! Rather than apologize *sigh*


I said I would edit my comment as I thought it would be edited before J-SP saw it. Having said that, J-SP provoked me further by basically saying, "I don't care what the facts are, my opinions override actual facts". Of course that's going to be a red rag to a legal bull

And I distinctly get the impression that J-SP is not really all that grateful for your erudite educated efficient strike-downs of lawyer to non-lawyer about the law...I think she was just *backing away slowly without making any sudden moves and reaching behind her for the door while smiling and nodding*


I like the things you say happyinthehaze :smile: What a marvellous picture you painted with your words ( and I liked the erudite educated efficient strike-down bit :wink: )
One does not simply fire a lawyer...
He may find it hard to get an NQ contract on qualification. On the other hand, he is a first seater, so if he impresses sufficiently in the next 18 months it may well be glossed over as a youthful mistake.
Reply 37
Original post by J-SP
I never said I don't care or that my opinion overrode the facts. I just said I disagree! The law is one thing the practical considerations you put around it are another.


If you are disagreeing on whether it's a good idea, from a PR / business perspective, no worries at all. Your prerogative and plenty of scope for good faith disagreement.

If you're saying you disagree on whether there's a discrimination claim to be made, then I don't really think there is the scope for disagreement there
Original post by young_guns

If you're saying you disagree on whether there's a discrimination claim to be made, then I don't really think there is the scope for disagreement there
With all the legal knowledge and training in the world, if there's one thing that this profession has taught me it's that you need to be very careful about being over confident in your own assessment of the facts of a case. Suggesting in this scenario that your particular view reflects the likely outcome of a case or situation is perfectly fine, suggesting that it is the only possible outcome is naive.

You may also just want to consider your statement that J-SP 'provoked' you by disagreeing with you. The notion that the person to whom you were being rude is to blame for your behaviour because they expressed a different view to you is rather extraordinary. There will of course be times when people deliberately take a viewpoint with the intention of aggravating you, and in those situations a harsh reaction may be more understandable if not entirely excusable, but this was not one of those scenarios, which makes your justification surprising to say the least.

Or in other words, relieving yourself of the notion that you are a 'legal bull' may assist in avoiding inappropriate reactions in future to 'red flags'.
Dear Legal Bull

Stop following me or I'm going to the police. There's new anti-stalking legislation in y'know!

Ta


I like the things you say happyinthehaze :smile: What a marvellous picture you painted with your words ( and I liked the erudite educated efficient strike-down bit :wink: )

Quick Reply

Latest