Podcasts about lord justice

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you the episode 176 of the IP Fridays Podcast. Today's interview guest is returning guest Franklin Graves, who is a senior counsel at Linkedin and teaching IP law at Emerson College. With my co-host Ken Suzan he is discussing how the law for creators has dramatically changed in the past years. Franklin Graves is expressing his personal views and not the views of Linkedin or Microsoft. He is talking about the paper “Upload Complete” before he joined Linkedin. Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklingraves/ Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5271442 Website: https://creatoreconomylaw.com/ But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! Richard Meade, a judge on the UK High Court and one of the most prominent figures in European patent law, was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal at the British Court of Appeal on June 12, 2026. Meade played a key role in numerous landmark British patent decisions, particularly in the area of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licenses. In Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., No. 2025-1807, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit completely overturned the original $452 million judgment (which had already been reduced by the District Court to $59.4 million) in favor of Insulet. In its decision of June 2, 2026, in the case of Fujifilm v. Kodak, the UPC Board of Appeal provided comprehensive clarifications regarding so-called “long-arm jurisdiction”—that is, the question of whether the UPC can also rule on national patent claims outside the UPC territory (such as in the United Kingdom). In 14 guiding principles, the judges established specific procedural rules for various categories of cases. There is no automatic UPC jurisdiction over national patent claims outside the UPC territory. The Munich Regional Court has issued an arrest warrant against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH because he is alleged to have continued to exploit the Brazilian company Silimed's patent for breast implants despite a preliminary injunction. A number of IT and automotive industry associations—which are among the most frequent users of Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the Court to grant Google's certiorari petition. An attorney for a Las Vegas performer has asked a California federal judge to temporarily prohibit Taylor Swift from using “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark while the trademark lawsuit is pending. Swift's attorney called the lawsuit baseless. And now let's hear Ken discuss creator law with Franklin! AI, Platform Law, and the Creator Economy: What Businesses Need to Know Now Franklin Graves has spent his entire career watching digital content move through systems that most people never see. He started in marketing at a major music label right out of law school, then represented individual creators on YouTube in a pro bono capacity, then moved to the platform side at Eventbrite, and today works as Senior Product Counsel at LinkedIn, where he focuses on AI, data, and the regulatory questions that come with both. His recently published law review article, Upload Complete: An Introduction to Creator Economy Law, is the first academic paper to address the creator economy as a distinct legal field. In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, he spoke with host Kenneth Suzan about responsible AI development, platform regulation, and what it actually means to own your audience in a world where the rules keep changing overnight. From Content Creator to Platform Lawyer The through-line in Graves’ career is a genuine understanding of how content moves from an idea in someone’s head to an audience on a screen. That experience, he argues, is precisely what in-house counsel needs right now. Lawyers working on AI and product development cannot afford to sit at a distance from the technology they are advising on. They need to use the tools, experience them as a creator or end user would, and understand the nuances of how a product actually operates before it reaches the public. Understanding the product first is the precondition for everything else. That philosophy translates directly into how he approaches responsible AI implementation. The landscape of AI standards is crowded: NIST frameworks, the EU AI Act, sector-specific guidance, and a growing body of industry-adopted best practices. The challenge for in-house counsel is not knowing that these standards exist. It is making them actionable for the engineering and product teams they support. Abstract principles need to become concrete controls and workflows. Graves offers one practical shortcut: most companies already have open source software review processes that involve the right stakeholders, the right sign-off levels, and the right security checks. Layering the specifics of generative AI or large language models onto those existing processes is far more efficient than building something new from scratch. A Fragmented Regulatory World The geopolitical dimension of AI regulation is something Graves thinks about constantly in his role at LinkedIn. The EU AI Act, shifting US executive orders, and country-specific approaches to data privacy have created a regulatory environment that can change the rules of the game without warning. His analogy is instructive: creators have long understood what it means to build a community on a platform they do not own. An algorithm change, a policy update, or a government ban can wipe out years of audience-building overnight. Businesses deploying AI tools globally now face a structurally similar problem. The response, for creators and for platforms alike, is to build resilience rather than rely on stability that may not last. TikTok is the clearest recent example. When the platform faced the prospect of being shut down in the United States on national security grounds, it triggered a broader conversation about platform dependence that had been building for years. Creators who had invested their entire business in one platform suddenly confronted the possibility that their audience could simply disappear. The lesson is not that platforms are bad. It is that concentration of any kind, whether it is your audience, your data pipeline, or your regulatory compliance strategy, creates fragility. What Is a Creator, Legally Speaking? One of the central contributions of Graves’ law review article is definitional. The terminology matters more than it might seem. When courts and regulators talk about creators without a shared understanding of what that word means, the resulting legal analysis tends to miss the mark. Graves draws a distinction between users who post content, creators who post with the intent to build an audience and eventually monetize it, and influencers, a subset of creators who are actively running a small business through their content. The difference is intent. A parent posting family photos on Facebook is a user. Someone building a subscription community around their professional expertise is running a business, and the legal framework that applies to them should reflect that. That distinction matters practically when it comes to liability. As more creators build their own platforms, whether through custom membership sites, open source tools like Ghost, or federated social networks, they take on obligations that previously fell to large platforms: content moderation policies, privacy notices, terms of service, and compliance with data regulations across multiple jurisdictions. A creator in Tennessee running a membership platform with subscribers in Germany is operating a global business, whether they think of themselves that way or not. Protecting Children Online: A Question Without a Clean Answer The tension between age verification and privacy is one of the more difficult problems in platform law right now. Australia, several European countries, and a growing number of US states have introduced or passed minimum age requirements for social media accounts. The technical challenge is real: verifying age online requires collecting identifying information, and collecting identifying information creates privacy risk, particularly for the young people the laws are designed to protect. Who should bear the responsibility for that verification is also unresolved. Is it the platform? The app store? The mobile operating system? Graves does not pretend there is a clean answer, but he points to the mobile layer as an underexplored option. The Apple App Store and Google Play Store already have significant leverage over which apps reach users on their devices. Whether that leverage should extend to age verification is a question that deserves more attention than it currently receives. The Right of Publicity in the Age of AI Voice cloning, digital replicas, and AI-generated synthetic media have pushed the right of publicity into territory that traditional IP law was not designed to cover. Trademark law, copyright law, and existing publicity rights each capture part of the problem but none of them covers it completely. The result, as Graves describes it, is a period of experimentation: lawyers filing trademarks on vocal sounds and phrases, states updating their publicity statutes to explicitly mention artificial intelligence, and entertainment unions negotiating over who controls a performance and any AI-generated iterations of it. Tennessee’s Elvis Act is a concrete example of the legislative response: the state updated its right of publicity law to include voice and to reference AI directly. Similar efforts are underway elsewhere. The underlying challenge is calibrating protection so that it gives creators and performers meaningful control over their likeness and voice without foreclosing the development of generative AI systems that depend on broad rights to process and learn from content. Somewhere between those two interests, a workable legal framework needs to emerge. The brand deal context may be where the issue becomes most immediately practical. When a brand partners with an influencer and the campaign involves generative AI in any form, the contract needs to address control explicitly. Who has final approval over how the influencer’s likeness or voice is used in AI-generated deliverables? What happens to those assets after the campaign ends? These are not hypothetical questions. They are contract drafting problems that any brand counsel or creator attorney should be addressing today. What Comes Next Graves is cautious about predictions, but his sense of direction is clear. The regulatory environment will continue to fragment before it converges. The right of publicity will be updated, imperfectly, in more jurisdictions. Creators will continue to move toward owning more of their infrastructure. And the lawyers who do this work best will be the ones who understand the technology well enough to translate it into practical, defensible decisions for the people they advise. Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. Our returning guest today is Franklin Graves. Franklin is the founder and editor of Creator Economy Law, a website and newsletter that educates creator economy professionals on the intersection of law and policy with the world of creators, brands, and platforms. Franklin also published the first law review article focused on the creator economy, Upload Complete, an introduction to creator economy law. He regularly appears across news and media outlets as a commentator and contributor with a focus on educating creators and raising awareness of all legal aspects of the creator economy. Franklin is based in Nashville, Tennessee. Ken Suzan: Franklin was invited to participate as one of the creators and creator economy professionals in the first ever White House creator economy conference. Franklin works full time as a product counsel at LinkedIn Corporation. As a member of the product and data team, he focuses on emerging issues in AI and data. Franklin previously held roles on the technology law group at HCA Healthcare, the commercial legal team at Eventbrite, and the business and legal affairs team at Naxos Music Group. Welcome back Franklin to the IP Fridays podcast. Franklin Graves: Thank you so much for having me. It is exciting to be back and reflecting over the last decade since I last joined and also the paper that I wrote that dives into this in more detail. So I really appreciate it. And yes, full disclosure, I currently work for LinkedIn, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft. I’m here in my personal capacity to talk about this, the paper I wrote before joining LinkedIn and all of that. So thank you so much for having me back. Ken Suzan: Excellent. So Franklin, since your last appearance on IP Fridays in 2017, your career has evolved significantly. You are now senior product counsel at LinkedIn focusing on AI and data. How has working inside a major tech platform changed your perspective on the legal frameworks governing digital content compared to when you were viewing it purely from the creator side? Franklin Graves: I appreciate that question because when I wrote the article, I did not work for LinkedIn. And I had been coming from a history in my career where I, right out of law school, worked for a record label like we talked about almost 10 years ago. And I was on the content creation side. I’ve represented a major distributor of classical music digitally at the time. And that was my first exposure to understanding how content was taken from the initial inception stage from creators and routed through all the various digital platforms that were at the time still evolving and even arguably still today continue to evolve. The early days of YouTube Music launching and then Apple Music launching, and then going through all the phases of high-res audio and everything that came after that. So that was an interesting perspective to start my career with. And then I went to Eventbrite, which is a ticketing platform, but was also focused on elevating event creators. They kind of took on that moniker of “Hey, we are event creators that we support.” And that was arguably my first exposure to the platform side, the tech platform side of it, because Eventbrite is a platform. And so then I evolved from there in my personal capacity, in a pro bono capacity representing individual creators across the YouTube space. And that’s what we talked about a little bit back when I first came on the podcast. Franklin Graves: Over the last decade, it’s been a chance to grow my own understanding of the creator economy. The terminology “creator economy” came around. And then now on the other side of it, having written the article and all that, and now being fully in-house at LinkedIn, I truly am experiencing a social media platform. LinkedIn is of course arguably way more than just the platform itself. There are so many different avenues to it, but it is a chance for me to understand what it is like working for a company that is operating the platform that people are distributing content on. There’s a user journey to content and all of that. So it’s definitely enhanced and given me a different perspective from a major tech platform side. And part of my role at LinkedIn is really heavily focused on understanding regulation and how that from an AI and data perspective impacts the company. And so I’ve been really leveling up my game over the last year and a half that I’ve been here, understanding mostly EU regulations, but also US regulations that are still in their infancy when it comes to AI. But really when it comes to privacy and data, those are pretty well established across the board. It’s been kind of a combination of what I learned at Eventbrite, because I went to Eventbrite when GDPR was going into effect. And so that was an eyes-wide-open moment of getting in the weeds with negotiating data processing agreements, understanding data transfers and cross-border data transfers and the like. So it’s been kind of an evolution as the laws and regulations have evolved. So has my career, so has my own understanding, so have the platforms’ responses to those laws and regulations. And I’m sure that probably resonates with a lot of your listeners who have also been growing their practice and their understanding as the laws and regulations in this realm have been evolving too. Ken Suzan: Yes, indeed. Now let’s switch gears and talk about AI. You advise on AI and data daily. As platforms integrate generative AI tools into their tech stacks, what are the most critical best practices in-house counsel should be adopting right now to embed responsible AI principles into product development? Franklin Graves: So as an attorney, one of my key roles is to understand the technology. Even representing creators and working for creator platforms, that’s something I’m constantly trying to do: put myself in the shoes of being a creator. And I think I talked about this last time I was on, but I come from a background where I was working for a major label doing marketing, video editing, social media work. And I was creating content. I understood the whole life cycle from the inception point of an idea to execution and then to the final delivery and distribution of that content to an audience within a major music label. And so part of that is the same thing that I think attorneys, especially in-house, should be doing: using the tools that the product and engineering teams are either developing in-house or partnering with third parties to develop, or a combination of the two. Using them, understanding them, using them as a creator would, using them as an end user or a client or customer would. And making sure that if you understand the product and understand the nuances of how it operates, and being a part of the iterations of that internally before it fully ramps, that really gives you a chance to understand: okay, we have a lot of responsible AI principles and standards and protocols that are in existence right now, whether it’s NIST, whether it’s based on the EU AI Act or anything and everything in between. It’s understanding how to apply those and bring those into a product and an engineering environment in a way that is practical and actionable for the people that you’re supporting, the stakeholders you’re supporting. So I think one of the critical best practices is, number one, understand the product or features that you’re supporting. Franklin Graves: And then understand how you as an attorney can use your expertise and understanding of responsible AI practices, whether it’s a regulatory standard or an industry-adopted standard or a hybrid of the two, to leverage those and implement those, break those down and make them into actionable controls and processes and flows that work within your existing infrastructure. That’s a lot of high-level talk, but that’s the general idea. One concrete example we talk about frequently is with open source AI. If you’re working with a product team or an engineering team that is taking an off-the-shelf open source model and bringing that in-house, a lot of times companies have pre-existing open source processes that cover the use of open source software or code. Piggyback on that. That’s the easiest quick win for attorneys: leveraging your existing open source processes to just build on top of that the AI flavor and layering. It’s not very much that you have to do, but the underlying process of the key stakeholders that need to be involved in the review, whether it’s security, whether it’s executive sign-off if it gets to that point, even export control considerations should already be part of your existing open source software process. So layering in on those existing processes the specifics of generative AI or large language models that you’re trying to bring in is a great way to put this into practice. Ken Suzan: Now looking at the geopolitical landscape that we currently have, we have the EU AI Act setting strict standards and shifting US executive orders. How should platforms and brands prepare for this fragmented regulatory environment when deploying AI tools to a global user base? Franklin Graves: It’s a great question. It’s something that is still evolving, I think is fair to say. I would equate it, as I do in the paper that I wrote, to how creators and arguably brands don’t own the platforms that they’re building their communities on. That spawned this concept of de-platforming or going into building your own platform, a decentralized platform of sorts, and owning your community. That gives you that control and takes away the level of instability that can come for creators trying to build a business on a platform they don’t own, they don’t control when certain updates happen, when algorithms change, when tools and functionalities either become available or go away completely. So it’s very similar to what we’ve been experiencing in a regulatory environment where we have geopolitical complexities, for lack of a better term, that can overnight seemingly disrupt the way in which a platform or even a multinational brand is able to connect and reach an audience or continue to leverage the user base that they’ve built. I think TikTok is a great example of that, where it became a national security concern and suddenly it was facing an executive order that required it to be effectively disabled in the US or completely owned and operated by a US entity. All the mechanics and technicalities of whether it’s actually possible and still have a global platform with a global user base is a whole different discussion. But that’s an example of very similar considerations that are now not just a discussion point at the creator level or the individual brand level, but also in a much broader context at a platform level as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, let’s now shift gears and talk about your article. In your recently published journal article, Upload Complete, which we will have linked in our show notes, you advocate for a shift in terminology from internet creator law, a term used during our first podcast almost a decade ago, to creator economy law. Why is this distinction important and how does it change the way legal practitioners should view the ecosystem of creators, brands, and platforms? Franklin Graves: Oh yes, this is part of the reason why I wanted to write the article: to lay this foundation of understanding. Because at the time I’d written the article, the term creator economy and creator had really not appeared but for maybe once in an actual court decision. And it was kind of focused on influencers and this concept, and it was just not getting it right. And so it was also, as you mentioned, when we first spoke I was even using the term internet creators. And I think that was something that was common at the time. The “internet” portion as a qualifier has since dropped off. And now for purposes of the creator economy, the term creators refers to individuals, it can be small businesses, which is what we’ve seen from a regulatory standpoint, how these small businesses are being impacted by regulations. But essentially creators in the article I pin in the context of intent. What is the intent behind the person or the small business that is posting content, trying to build a community and form a community in a virtual environment? And then that can even spill over into real physical world environments. And so the intent is kind of what I look at. Franklin Graves: And I have a chart in the article that has a diagram showcasing the overlap of what I refer to as “users generating content.” It’s a play on the concept of user-generated content, UGC. Users generating content is that large bucket of anyone posting on a platform of some kind. And within that large bucket, that large circle, are smaller subsets. You have creators, you have brands. Those are really the two buckets you can put people into. Otherwise it’s like your grandmother or your parents posting content on Facebook or Instagram, and those are everyday users of a platform. The distinction to get into that subcategory of being a creator more so has been analyzing the intent behind the posting. Are you posting content to build an audience, to build a community, to eventually have a chance to monetize the following that you’re bringing in or sell services or something like that? Brands are posting for that reason. Creators are maybe posting for that same reason. But even within the creator category, there’s a subcategory of influencers that are trying to sell something, that are trying to build more than just an awareness of who they are, their influence. They are trying to do brand deals, partnership deals, upsells and all that, and start an actual small business aside from just the content itself that they’re creating. So that’s kind of the distinctions that I make in the paper. And that’s why it’s important to understand and lay that foundation, that anyone can post content online, but the intent, the why behind their posting that content, really does ultimately matter, especially when you’re looking at it from a court case or from a regulatory standpoint. Ken Suzan: Now, Franklin, we’re seeing unprecedented geopolitical activity around platform ownership. For example, the US legislation targeting TikTok and Brazil’s recent temporary ban of X. How do these macro-level battles impact the day-to-day livelihood of creators? And how can they legally and operationally protect themselves? Franklin Graves: So the shift that we’re seeing, and I alluded to this earlier in our conversation, is this concept of Web 3. And that term may or may not be really popular anymore, but that’s essentially what we’re looking at: a shift into a federated, decentralized operation of a platform. So instead of one owner, one company, one entity owning and operating the platform, it’s decentralized. Anyone can start up a server, and it’s interoperable, meaning anyone can plug and play and connect to that larger network. And it creates this unified social network experience. Within each operating node of that network, there can be your own decisions around content moderation, your own decisions around the hosting providers you use, where you’re operating out of, the terms and conditions that apply to that. But the flip side is that instead of creators posting and sharing in a closed environment run and controlled by a singular entity, you’re now experiencing a peer-to-peer type operation where your experience can change based on which server, which node, which user you’re engaging with. You might have content that’s acceptable in one area but not acceptable in another, and maybe it just doesn’t even show up in that other area. Franklin Graves: But from a liability standpoint, as creators start to build their own networks and communities, even outside of a concept like the fediverse, it’s even down to creators building their own communities through online courses, subscription membership-based platforms that they run on their own website. There’s open source software out there, even something called Ghost, where you have memberships. And that is a creator or a small business in the creator economy that is now taking on the obligations that would typically fall upon a platform. They need to take into consideration terms and conditions, privacy policies, legal aspects, and regulatory considerations for running a platform, especially in a global world. So it’s a lot of liability that then shifts over to those small businesses and even brands sometimes that are doing the same thing. Whether it is something as simple or complex as content moderation or all the way up to monetizing an audience, this new world where creators can spin up and run a platform all dovetails back to the concept of creators not feeling like they have control in reaching the audience and the community that they’re building on an individual platform. And so this really became more mainstream conversation with TikTok and the issues around it potentially being shut down in the US. That was kind of the mindset shift and eyes opening for many creators, especially within the influencer subset, of realizing: we need to make sure that we have a way to reach the audience we’ve built if the individual platform that we’ve committed to over the last year or three years or so is no longer available. We need a way to continue that relationship outside of that one platform controlling it. Ken Suzan: Franklin, we have a few minutes left and a number of topics. So I’m going to switch gears and talk about a few issues. First, a major emerging topic in your paper is the evolution of protecting kids online. With state-level age-gating laws like the CAADCA and the recent FTC updates to COPPA, how should platforms navigate the significant tension between strict age verification mandates and the privacy and First Amendment rights of their users? Franklin Graves: Man, that is a whole discussion to unravel. It is a consideration that we’re seeing happen again, going back to the geopolitical nature of everything. Countries like Australia and certain countries in Europe and now even individual states in the US are trying to look at ways, and some of them have already put into place minimum age requirements before you can even sign up for an account with a social media platform. One of the things I’d just highlight quickly here is that one of the tensions is around how you verify someone’s age online and still maintain the ability to be at least pseudonymous. How do you still have a level of privacy, autonomy, and protection when it comes to having to provide something like a driver’s license or have parental consent tied and connected to an account managed by a parent in a situation where maybe it’s not appropriate or not beneficial to the child in that manner? But then maybe there are counterbalancing factors that outweigh that. All of that comes down to the technicalities of how it’s actually implemented and maintaining the sense of openness and freedom that we’ve had on the internet to date. And then the other element there is, since a lot of the internet that we think of today is more so through mobile applications, is it something that the mobile operating system providers and app store providers should be thinking about? So whether that’s the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store, where does that initial age verification need to fall? Is it at the platform level? Is it the app store or mobile device management level or something else? Yeah, there’s a lot to discuss there. And a lot of the issues we’re seeing with how the internet is changing in terms of being able to browse a website without disclosing personal information that might not have been required before is largely stemming from a focus on protecting children online. Ken Suzan: It sounds like, Franklin, we could have another episode covering lots of issues connected with that one topic alone. Franklin Graves: I would absolutely agree with that. There’s a lot going on there. And again, it’s different across the world. And so I know you all have a global listener base. And so there’s a lot of nuances to that whole discussion too, that are worth exploring. Ken Suzan: Last question for today’s episode is regarding the right of publicity. With the explosion of AI-generated synthetic media, digital replicas, and voice cloning, the right of publicity is taking center stage. What are the biggest legal risks for brands partnering with influencers right now? And how can creators protect their most valuable asset, their likeness? Franklin Graves: That’s a great question. I think we’re seeing kind of a throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach right now by a lot of different parties, whether it’s trademark attorneys, whether it’s general entertainment attorneys or whoever. For example, we’ve seen Taylor Swift filing trademarks to protect certain sounds of her voice and phrasing that she uses. It’s a difficult area because in the realm of generative AI with deep fakes and virtual avatars, that is where it gets tricky, because traditional IP laws are just not able to fully cover that spectrum. It’s a piecemeal approach, but even then it doesn’t fully cover it. So for example, I’m based in Tennessee and a couple of years ago we had the Elvis Act that updated our right of publicity law to add voice and to explicitly reference artificial intelligence. And so that’s the kind of effort we’re probably going to continue to see: efforts to develop some framework around protecting what is essentially a privacy right, in a manner that doesn’t restrict generative AI systems from continuing to develop and operate the way they’re operating now, while layering in those protections so that in the US at least a First Amendment right doesn’t necessarily get squashed, and those traditional well-recognized efforts to not overregulate a technology in its early stages are respected. Franklin Graves: And so I think a lot of what we’re seeing is just a need to update laws. The SAG-AFTRA debate and the strikes that happened around maintaining control of your performance and any iterations of that, or building upon that by a media company that might come later, it’s all on the table right now and still being discussed, still being worked out. I think in the short run, a lot of times if it’s in a brand deal, the key question is: if you are using generative AI to enhance in some way the final deliverable for the campaign, who has control over that? Who has final say and sign-off on how that likeness or that digital replica or that person’s voice is represented? And even outside of the brand space, we’ve seen actors like James Earl Jones signing over certain aspects like their voice and allowing it to continue to be used in these manners powered by generative AI as Darth Vader. And I think I saw something that Boy George was even starting up an AI company that allows musicians, the original recording artist, to rerecord new versions of their masters so that they don’t miss out on that revenue. It’s powered by generative AI, by taking their voice now, which is significantly different than it was back in the 80s, and using generative AI to make it sound closer to the original, but all based on their current performance. So I think it’s still an evolving area. And what’s interesting too is on the platform side, we’re seeing the early stages of platforms like Google starting to acknowledge and rely on the license grant contained in their terms of service for YouTube, which grants them broad rights to use the content to run their platform. So all that to be said, it’s still early stages. I’m very interested to see where we go from here in the future, especially from a global perspective as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, I could spend hours talking to you about this. You’re such a knowledgeable person on these topics. Maybe in a few years, will we connect again and talk further on AI and all the things that are yet to be developed? Franklin Graves: Thank you. Yeah, it doesn’t have to be another decade. Maybe we can cut it to half a decade, given the pace at which technology is going now. Ken Suzan: Sounds good, Franklin. Thanks again for being on the IP Fridays podcast.

Republican organisation Lasair Dhearg recently “renamed” Dublin's Drury Street to “Bobby Sands Street”. In a video online they said Irish streets should not be named after the likes of William Drury, a British soldier who was Lord Justice of Ireland in the 16th century. Should we reconsider the names of streets we walk along each day? Ciara asked Dáithí Doolan, Sinn Fein Councillor in Ballyfermot.

Republican organisation Lasair Dhearg recently “renamed” Dublin's Drury Street to “Bobby Sands Street”. In a video online they said Irish streets should not be named after the likes of William Drury, a British soldier who was Lord Justice of Ireland in the 16th century. Should we reconsider the names of streets we walk along each day? Ciara asked Dáithí Doolan, Sinn Fein Councillor in Ballyfermot.

Proverbs 20:22 calls God's people away from personal vengeance and toward patient trust. Instead of repaying evil with evil, wisdom commands restraint and confidence in the Lord's justice. God alone sees fully, judges rightly, and delivers at the proper time. In today's Morning Manna, Rick Wiles and Doc Burkhart explore why retaliation corrupts the heart, how waiting on the Lord protects the soul, and why true victory belongs to those who entrust justice to God rather than taking it into their own hands. Lesson 21-2026 Teachers: Rick Wiles and Doc Burkhart You can partner with us by visiting MannaNation.com, calling 1-888-519-4935, or by mail at PO Box 399 Vero Beach, FL 32961. MEGA FIRE reveals the ancient recurring cycles of war and economic collapse that have shaped history for 600 years. These patterns predict America is now entering its most dangerous period since World War II. Get your copy today! www.megafire.world Get high-quality emergency preparedness food today from American Reserves! www.AmericanReserves.com It's the Final Day! The day Jesus Christ bursts into our dimension of time, space, and matter. Now available in eBook and audio formats! Order Final Day from Amazon today! www.Amazon.com/Final-Day Apple users, you can download the audio version on Apple Books! www.books.apple.com/final-day Purchase the 4-part DVD set or start streaming Sacrificing Liberty today. www.Sacrificingliberty.com

On 28 February 2025 The Rt. Hon. Lord Briggs of Westbourne delivered the 2025 XXIV Old Buildings Lecture entitled "Equitable Ownership".Michael Townley Featherstone Briggs, Lord Briggs of Westbourne became a Justice of the Supreme Court in October 2017.Lord Briggs grew up around Portsmouth and Plymouth, following his naval officer father between ships, before spending his later childhood in West Sussex. He attended Charterhouse and Magdalen College, Oxford. A keen sailor and the first lawyer in his family, he practised in commercial and chancery work before being appointed to the High Court in 2006. He was the judge in charge of the extensive Lehman insolvency litigation from 2009 to 2013.Lord Briggs was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2013. He was the judge in charge of the Chancery Modernisation Review in 2013, and led the Civil Courts Structure Review in 2015 to 2016. In January 2016 he was appointed Deputy Head of Civil Justice.Timings:Professor Graham Virgo - Introduction: 00:00The Rt. Hon. Lord Briggs of Westbourne: 02:07The XXIV Old Buildings Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre, and the event is sponsored by XXIV Old Buildings.More information about this lecture is available from the Private Law Centre website:https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events

On 28 February 2025 The Rt. Hon. Lord Briggs of Westbourne delivered the 2025 XXIV Old Buildings Lecture entitled "Equitable Ownership".Michael Townley Featherstone Briggs, Lord Briggs of Westbourne became a Justice of the Supreme Court in October 2017.Lord Briggs grew up around Portsmouth and Plymouth, following his naval officer father between ships, before spending his later childhood in West Sussex. He attended Charterhouse and Magdalen College, Oxford. A keen sailor and the first lawyer in his family, he practised in commercial and chancery work before being appointed to the High Court in 2006. He was the judge in charge of the extensive Lehman insolvency litigation from 2009 to 2013.Lord Briggs was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2013. He was the judge in charge of the Chancery Modernisation Review in 2013, and led the Civil Courts Structure Review in 2015 to 2016. In January 2016 he was appointed Deputy Head of Civil Justice.Timings:Professor Graham Virgo - Introduction: 00:00The Rt. Hon. Lord Briggs of Westbourne: 02:07The XXIV Old Buildings Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre, and the event is sponsored by XXIV Old Buildings.More information about this lecture is available from the Private Law Centre website:https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events

Baroness Hale of Richmond is a pioneering female legal mind who became President of the Supreme Court in the U.K. Baroness Hale of Richmond was invited to give the Sir Winston Churchill Memorial Lecture by the British Luxembourg Society this week; only the second woman in its history to have done so, the first being Margaret Thatcher. Her talk was entitled “The Independence of the Judiciary and some of its Enemies”. Baroness Hale is, in the words of criminal barrister Gareth Weetman, ‘legal royalty'. Her fame grew beyond the world of legal minds when, as President of the Supreme Court, she had to deliver the verdict that Boris Johnson's prorogation of parliament was “void and of no effect”. She did so whilst wearing a demure black dress adorned with a striking spider brooch. In this interview at RTL she wore her favourite brooch - two mating dragonflies. Lady Hale's life story is now available in her book, Spider Woman. I highly suggest you listen to it in audible format, with Lady Hale herself as narrator. This highlights the sparkle and keen sense of intelligence in her voice. During this interview, we start with the ‘Spider' story and move onto whether Lady Hale believes British Parliament is in favour of an independent judiciary, or whether she feels the Supreme Court justices are influenced by Government. We also mention Suella Braverman, as the Supreme Court very recently ruled her idea of sending refugees coming to the UK to Rwanda as unlawful. In Lady Hale's lifetime as an academic, Law Commissioner, High Court Judge, Lord Justice of Appeal, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and finally President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Lady Hale has effected great change in the legal rights of women, children and those with mental health issues, amongst much else. In this long discussion we have a glimpse into the life of an extremely agile mind that has developed British law for the benefit of a greater proportion of society. Lady Hale believes we need more basic education of the judiciary processes in school in order to understand how law is there for the benefit of society; how things link together. Her only daughter, Julia Hoggett, is CEO at the London Stock Exchange, and is another trailblazer in her own right. Lady Hale's late second-husband, Julian Farrand, had the wonderful piece of advice: "All I want is more than enough". Lady Hale is the middle of three daughters who all became Head Girl of their school in Yorkshire and the only ladies to marry 30 miles beyond their home village. Her parents were accomplished teachers and her father's sudden death aged just 49, when she was 13, developed a core of resilience and non-dependence on a man for income. Baroness Hale was accompanied by Sir Nicholas Forwood KC.

Baroness Hale of Richmond is a pioneering female legal mind who became President of the Supreme Court in the U.K. Baroness Hale of Richmond was invited to give the Sir Winston Churchill Memorial Lecture by the British Luxembourg Society this week; only the second woman in its history to have done so, the first being Margaret Thatcher. Her talk was entitled “The Independence of the Judiciary and some of its Enemies”. Baroness Hale is, in the words of criminal barrister Gareth Weetman, ‘legal royalty'. Her fame grew beyond the world of legal minds when, as President of the Supreme Court, she had to deliver the verdict that Boris Johnson's prorogation of parliament was “void and of no effect”. She did so whilst wearing a demure black dress adorned with a striking spider brooch. In this interview at RTL she wore her favourite brooch - two mating dragonflies. Lady Hale's life story is now available in her book, Spider Woman. I highly suggest you listen to it in audible format, with Lady Hale herself as narrator. This highlights the sparkle and keen sense of intelligence in her voice. During this interview, we start with the ‘Spider' story and move onto whether Lady Hale believes British Parliament is in favour of an independent judiciary, or whether she feels the Supreme Court justices are influenced by Government. We also mention Suella Braverman, as the Supreme Court very recently ruled her idea of sending refugees coming to the UK to Rwanda as unlawful. In Lady Hale's lifetime as an academic, Law Commissioner, High Court Judge, Lord Justice of Appeal, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and finally President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Lady Hale has effected great change in the legal rights of women, children and those with mental health issues, amongst much else. In this long discussion we have a glimpse into the life of an extremely agile mind that has developed British law for the benefit of a greater proportion of society. Lady Hale believes we need more basic education of the judiciary processes in school in order to understand how law is there for the benefit of society; how things link together. Her only daughter, Julia Hoggett, is CEO at the London Stock Exchange, and is another trailblazer in her own right. Lady Hale's late second-husband, Julian Farrand, had the wonderful piece of advice: "All I want is more than enough". Lady Hale is the middle of three daughters who all became Head Girl of their school in Yorkshire and the only ladies to marry 30 miles beyond their home village. Her parents were accomplished teachers and her father's sudden death aged just 49, when she was 13, developed a core of resilience and non-dependence on a man for income. Baroness Hale was accompanied by Sir Nicholas Forwood KC.

The Israelites complain to God that the world seems like an unfair and unjust place to live. The evil seem to get away from it and God doesn't seem to intervene; corruption and wickedness are abounding and God seems to do nothing. God responds by promising to send a messenger who will prepare the way for God himself to come and bring justice, purifying with fire to remove the idolatry, sinfulness and immorality that is rife among them. The people don't seem to trust that God will come to bring justice and freedom for the oppressed and saw him as passive and unconcerned. However, God was faithful to his promises as Jesus fulfils this (Luke 4:16-19) and then promises to make all things new again in the age to come. How can we get frustrated with or blame God for the suffering and injustice we see in this world? Do we trust that God really does care about the state of this world, and will do something about it? What is our part in brining justice and freedom to the oppressed?

Originally recorded and released on April 28, 2023.The Spirit of the Lord declares that the righteous judges shall be vindicated, while those who have met behind closed doors to manipulate trials shall be exposed. The Lord issued a warning for the people of Hawaii and calls upon families with recognizable names to stretch their faith and to be a shield against the destruction of law. The prophetic word also touches on current events, such as the upcoming baffling election cycle and the scandal in New York's highest seats. Tune into the Word to also hear the message to believers, April 28th @4pm EDT.All Glory goes to Almighty God for we are nothing without Him! Amanda Grace and her animal friends on Liftable TV! A new platform for believers! Here is the link: https://liftable.tv/arkofgrace/ Defund the Swamp and Refund the Kingdom! Use promo code ARK to get up to 66% off My Pillow Products–our unique 800 number is 800-585-7413! Grow vegetables 3 times faster and 30% More with this amazing hydroponic garden tower: www.amandagracegrows.com Need Sound Advice on Financial Matters, pertaining to precious metals as well? Andrew Sorchini is a believer who owns Beverly Hills Precious Metals. If you have questions and would like to learn about buying gold and silver and other investments contact: andrew@bh-pm.com 1 (866) 346-5325 POWRTEIN is an incredible blend of 130 raw superfoods that immensely help your body and organ function down to the mitochondrial level! gives you energy, helps your brain function, and overall helps your body to receive the nutrients it needs. Our bodies are temples, and we must care for the body as well as the spirit. I personally use Powrtein and it is truly an amazing product! Here is the link: https://www.life-enthusiast.com/shop/. All Sponsors/Approved Businesses can be found in our shop section: https://ark-of-grace-ministries.myshopify.com/collections/shop Your prayer request is important to us! Please send all prayer requests to: prayers@arkofgrace-ministries.com For all other inquiries, please feel free to email us at: hello@arkofgrace-ministries.com If you feel led or want to give to or bless this ministry (that is between you and the Lord) for we do this for the Glory of God first–all giving links can be found here: http://arkofgrace-ministries.com/donate/

On 10 March 2023 Lord Philip Sales delivered the 2023 Cambridge Freshfields Lecture entitled "Constitutional values in the common law of obligations". Philip James Sales, Lord Sales became a Justice of the Supreme Court in January 2019. Lord Sales was educated at the Royal Grammar School in Guildford, before reading law at both Churchill College, Cambridge, and Worcester College, Oxford. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales at Lincoln's Inn in 1985 and was appointed First Treasury Junior Counsel in 1997. He was an Assistant Recorder from 1999 to 2001, Recorder from 2001 and 2008, and Deputy High Court Judge from 2004 and 2008. Lord Sales became a Queen's Counsel in 2006 and continued to act in the re-named post of First Treasury Counsel Common Law until his appointment to the High Court, Chancery Division in 2008. He was a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal between 2008 and 2015, and Vice-President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal between 2014 and 2015. Between 2009 and 2014 Lord Sales served as Deputy Chair of the Boundary Commission for England. He was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2014. Timings: - Professor Lionel Smith Introduction: 0:00 - Professor Pippa Rogerson Introduction: 7:46 - Lord Sales: 11:46 - Professor Graham Virgo Thanks: 56:17 The Cambridge Freshfields Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre, and the event is sponsored by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. More information about this lecture, including photographs from the event, is available from the Private Law Centre website: https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events/special-events

On 10 March 2023 Lord Philip Sales delivered the 2023 Cambridge Freshfields Lecture entitled "Constitutional values in the common law of obligations". Philip James Sales, Lord Sales became a Justice of the Supreme Court in January 2019. Lord Sales was educated at the Royal Grammar School in Guildford, before reading law at both Churchill College, Cambridge, and Worcester College, Oxford. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales at Lincoln's Inn in 1985 and was appointed First Treasury Junior Counsel in 1997. He was an Assistant Recorder from 1999 to 2001, Recorder from 2001 and 2008, and Deputy High Court Judge from 2004 and 2008. Lord Sales became a Queen's Counsel in 2006 and continued to act in the re-named post of First Treasury Counsel Common Law until his appointment to the High Court, Chancery Division in 2008. He was a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal between 2008 and 2015, and Vice-President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal between 2014 and 2015. Between 2009 and 2014 Lord Sales served as Deputy Chair of the Boundary Commission for England. He was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2014. Timings: - Professor Lionel Smith Introduction: 0:00 - Professor Pippa Rogerson Introduction: 7:46 - Lord Sales: 11:46 - Professor Graham Virgo Thanks: 56:17 The Cambridge Freshfields Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre, and the event is sponsored by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. More information about this lecture, including photographs from the event, is available from the Private Law Centre website: https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events/special-events

On 10 March 2023 Lord Philip Sales delivered the 2023 Cambridge Freshfields Lecture entitled "Constitutional values in the common law of obligations". Philip James Sales, Lord Sales became a Justice of the Supreme Court in January 2019. Lord Sales was educated at the Royal Grammar School in Guildford, before reading law at both Churchill College, Cambridge, and Worcester College, Oxford. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales at Lincoln's Inn in 1985 and was appointed First Treasury Junior Counsel in 1997. He was an Assistant Recorder from 1999 to 2001, Recorder from 2001 and 2008, and Deputy High Court Judge from 2004 and 2008. Lord Sales became a Queen's Counsel in 2006 and continued to act in the re-named post of First Treasury Counsel Common Law until his appointment to the High Court, Chancery Division in 2008. He was a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal between 2008 and 2015, and Vice-President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal between 2014 and 2015. Between 2009 and 2014 Lord Sales served as Deputy Chair of the Boundary Commission for England. He was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2014. Timings: - Professor Lionel Smith Introduction: 0:00 - Professor Pippa Rogerson Introduction: 7:46 - Lord Sales: 11:46 - Professor Graham Virgo Thanks: 56:17 The Cambridge Freshfields Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre, and the event is sponsored by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. More information about this lecture, including photographs from the event, is available from the Private Law Centre website: https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events/special-events This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On 10 March 2023 Lord Philip Sales delivered the 2023 Cambridge Freshfields Lecture entitled "Constitutional values in the common law of obligations". Philip James Sales, Lord Sales became a Justice of the Supreme Court in January 2019. Lord Sales was educated at the Royal Grammar School in Guildford, before reading law at both Churchill College, Cambridge, and Worcester College, Oxford. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales at Lincoln's Inn in 1985 and was appointed First Treasury Junior Counsel in 1997. He was an Assistant Recorder from 1999 to 2001, Recorder from 2001 and 2008, and Deputy High Court Judge from 2004 and 2008. Lord Sales became a Queen's Counsel in 2006 and continued to act in the re-named post of First Treasury Counsel Common Law until his appointment to the High Court, Chancery Division in 2008. He was a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal between 2008 and 2015, and Vice-President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal between 2014 and 2015. Between 2009 and 2014 Lord Sales served as Deputy Chair of the Boundary Commission for England. He was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2014. Timings: - Professor Lionel Smith Introduction: 0:00 - Professor Pippa Rogerson Introduction: 7:46 - Lord Sales: 11:46 - Professor Graham Virgo Thanks: 56:17 The Cambridge Freshfields Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre, and the event is sponsored by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. More information about this lecture, including photographs from the event, is available from the Private Law Centre website: https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events/special-events

On 10 March 2023 Lord Philip Sales delivered the 2023 Cambridge Freshfields Lecture entitled "Constitutional values in the common law of obligations". Philip James Sales, Lord Sales became a Justice of the Supreme Court in January 2019. Lord Sales was educated at the Royal Grammar School in Guildford, before reading law at both Churchill College, Cambridge, and Worcester College, Oxford. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales at Lincoln's Inn in 1985 and was appointed First Treasury Junior Counsel in 1997. He was an Assistant Recorder from 1999 to 2001, Recorder from 2001 and 2008, and Deputy High Court Judge from 2004 and 2008. Lord Sales became a Queen's Counsel in 2006 and continued to act in the re-named post of First Treasury Counsel Common Law until his appointment to the High Court, Chancery Division in 2008. He was a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal between 2008 and 2015, and Vice-President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal between 2014 and 2015. Between 2009 and 2014 Lord Sales served as Deputy Chair of the Boundary Commission for England. He was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2014. Timings: - Professor Lionel Smith Introduction: 0:00 - Professor Pippa Rogerson Introduction: 7:46 - Lord Sales: 11:46 - Professor Graham Virgo Thanks: 56:17 The Cambridge Freshfields Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre, and the event is sponsored by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. More information about this lecture, including photographs from the event, is available from the Private Law Centre website: https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events/special-events This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On 10 March 2023 Lord Philip Sales delivered the 2023 Cambridge Freshfields Lecture entitled "Constitutional values in the common law of obligations". Philip James Sales, Lord Sales became a Justice of the Supreme Court in January 2019. Lord Sales was educated at the Royal Grammar School in Guildford, before reading law at both Churchill College, Cambridge, and Worcester College, Oxford. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales at Lincoln's Inn in 1985 and was appointed First Treasury Junior Counsel in 1997. He was an Assistant Recorder from 1999 to 2001, Recorder from 2001 and 2008, and Deputy High Court Judge from 2004 and 2008. Lord Sales became a Queen's Counsel in 2006 and continued to act in the re-named post of First Treasury Counsel Common Law until his appointment to the High Court, Chancery Division in 2008. He was a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal between 2008 and 2015, and Vice-President of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal between 2014 and 2015. Between 2009 and 2014 Lord Sales served as Deputy Chair of the Boundary Commission for England. He was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2014. Timings: - Professor Lionel Smith Introduction: 0:00 - Professor Pippa Rogerson Introduction: 7:46 - Lord Sales: 11:46 - Professor Graham Virgo Thanks: 56:17 The Cambridge Freshfields Lecture is an annual address delivered by a guest of the Cambridge Private Law Centre, and the event is sponsored by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. More information about this lecture, including photographs from the event, is available from the Private Law Centre website: https://www.privatelaw.law.cam.ac.uk/events/special-events

Romancing the Scot by May McGoldrick Part 2http://bit.ly/3ZVUqBRHugh Pennington - Viscount Greysteil, Lord Justice of the Scottish Courts, hero of the Napoleonic wars - is a grieving widower with a death wish. When he receives an expected crate from the continent, he is shocked to find a nearly dead woman inside. Her identity is unknown, and the handful of American coins and the precious diamond sown into her dress only deepen the mystery. Grace Ware is an enemy to the English crown. Her father, an Irish military commander of Napoleon's defeated army. Her mother, an exiled Scottish Jacobite. When Grace took shelter in a warehouse, running from her father's murderers through the harbor alleyways of Antwerp, she never anticipated bad luck to deposit her at the home of an aristocrat in the Scottish Borders. Baronsford is the last place she could expect to find safety, and Grace feigns a loss of memory to buy herself time while she recovers. http://bit.ly/3ZVUqBRhttps://bookcastmedia.com

Romancing the Scot by May McGoldrick Part 1http://bit.ly/3ZVUqBRHugh Pennington - Viscount Greysteil, Lord Justice of the Scottish Courts, hero of the Napoleonic wars - is a grieving widower with a death wish. When he receives an expected crate from the continent, he is shocked to find a nearly dead woman inside. Her identity is unknown, and the handful of American coins and the precious diamond sown into her dress only deepen the mystery. Grace Ware is an enemy to the English crown. Her father, an Irish military commander of Napoleon's defeated army. Her mother, an exiled Scottish Jacobite. When Grace took shelter in a warehouse, running from her father's murderers through the harbor alleyways of Antwerp, she never anticipated bad luck to deposit her at the home of an aristocrat in the Scottish Borders. Baronsford is the last place she could expect to find safety, and Grace feigns a loss of memory to buy herself time while she recovers. http://bit.ly/3ZVUqBRhttps://bookcastmedia.com

In the Psalms, David speaks about the Zeal of the Lord. How can we see David's zeal for the Lord when we study his life in scriptures?

Welcome Lord-Justice Canton the fonder of LNFAMOUS. Lord Justice and I had an a unique conversation from living in Ny and his experience living in LA to street wear, food and more. Go And follow LINKS BELOW : https://www.instagram.com/lj_canton/ https://www.instagram.com/lnfamousideas/ https://www.instagram.com/3verythinginbetween/ https://linktr.ee/thenationalbureau https://lnfamous.com

The role of the Lord Chancellor is to protect and uphold the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Yet the position is held by a cabinet minister: the secretary of state for justice. This overlap between the independent judiciary and the political world, and the balance of power between parliament, government and the judiciary, is the source of much debate – and disagreement. So what powers, if any, should a Lord Chancellor have over judicial appointments? Should the role go to someone with a legal background? What makes a good Lord Chancellor? Sir Robert Buckland, who served as Lord Chancellor and secretary of state for justice until September 2021, opened this event with a short speech on his experiences in post and his proposals for how it can be reformed. Responding to Sir Robert Buckland and joining the discussion: Baroness Butler-Sloss, former judge and first female Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Jonathan Jones, former treasury solicitor and head of the government legal department The event was chaired by Emma Norris, Director of Research at the Institute for Government. #IfGLordChancellor

The Day of the Lord: Justice, Hope, and the Best Kind of Warning Rev. Craig Luekens 1 Thessalonians 5: 1 - 11

The role of the Lord Chancellor is to protect and uphold the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. Yet the position is held by a cabinet minister: the secretary of state for justice. This overlap between the independent judiciary and the political world, and the balance of power between parliament, government and the judiciary, is the source of much debate – and disagreement. So what powers, if any, should a Lord Chancellor have over judicial appointments? Should the role go to someone with a legal background? What makes a good Lord Chancellor? Sir Robert Buckland, who served as Lord Chancellor and secretary of state for justice until September 2021, opened this event with a short speech on his experiences in post and his proposals for how it can be reformed. Responding to Sir Robert Buckland and joining the discussion: Baroness Butler-Sloss, former judge and first female Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Jonathan Jones, former treasury solicitor and head of the government legal department The event was chaired by Emma Norris, Director of Research at the Institute for Government. #IfGLordChancellor

This week, we're joined by journalist and magician Alan White (@Aljwhite), who is the Editor-in-Chief of Politics Home, and the former Lord Justice of Twitter (according to his bio). We discuss the most important issue of our times: Are Clowns a subset of Magician? It's an important question which tackles the conception of 'audience' that underpins the current culture war in the Magic Circle, between old school, guarded Magicians and their younger TikTok friendly counterparts. Hussein also comes out as a CERF, with his own gatekeeping over what constitutes a Clown in the context of the Now You See Me franchise. Later, we talk about Andrew Lilico, a once moderately respected British economist who is now mainly known for his weird tweets, that range from whether or not you can marry an Alien in a Catholic church, to his fantastical scenario in which two low-level English cricketers are put on trial for calling the Home Secretary a pedophile on Twitter. Lilico is one of the best examples of Poster's Brain we've seen, and Alan tries to explain why this might be reflective of a broader trend of former think-tank people who, having realised nobody reads their reports or cares what they have to say, have simply decided to be posters instead.  ----more---- This is a free episode! But if you fancy more bonus content, you can subscribe on Patreon at : www.patreon.com/10kpostspodcast.  ----more----In memory of our late friend Dawn Foster, we encourage you to donate to her memorial bench fund, here: A Bench In Memory of Dawn Foster: https://www.gofundme.com/f/a-bench-in-memory-of-dawn-foster?utm_campaign=m_pd+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link_all&utm_source=customer

Episode 15: Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Richard Arnold by Hugh Hansen

In this first episode, Helen Davies QC talks to Sir Nicholas Green. Their wide-ranging discussion, which was recorded remotely in February 2021 due to lockdown restrictions, covers their lives in practice, at Brick Court and beyond. · The early days of “making” European law (Factortame) · Dealing with Government, both as Chair of the Bar and as Chair of the Law Commission · The development and modernisation of Chambers, and the experience of being Head of Chambers · The view from and life on the bench (including what Judges look for in advocates) · Work life balance Sir Nicholas Green is a Lord Justice of Appeal sitting in the Court of Appeal and Chairman of the Law Commission. After swimming for England and a career in academia, Nick Green was called to the bar in 1986, and joined Brick Court Chambers in 1990. Practising predominantly in European and competition law, public and constitutional law, he took silk in 1998. He was Chairman of the Bar in 2010, and joint head of Chambers from 2011 until he went to the High Court Bench in 2013. In 2018, he was promoted to the Court of Appeal, and appointed as Chairman of the Law Commission. Helen Davies QC is Joint Head of Brick Court Chambers. Helen Davies was called to the bar in 1991, joining Brick Court as a pupil in 1992. Her practice encompasses much of the breadth of Brick Court's work, from heavy commercial litigation to competition law and Euro work. She took silk in 2008, and became joint head of chambers in 2013 - one of the first female heads of a magic circle set.

In the first half of this special two-part episode, we delve deep into the world of patents, exploring some of Sir Robin's most important and challenging cases over an illustrious career spanning 40 years. In Part 1, we explore: Sir Robin's route to the Patent Bar, from Cambridge graduate to career litigator, reaching the post of Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales; precedent-setting and influential cases spanning Sir Robin's renowned career, including musings on Norwich Pharmacal Co. & Others v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974], and the changing nature of IP law; Sir Robin's judicial career at the forefront of patents, his most difficult cases and preparation for trial, and thoughts from the sharp end of IP disputes; lecturing, authorship and knowledge sharing, to support the next generation of patent lawyers; and much more. Part 2 - coming Wednesday 27 January.

Although not dominating the COVID headlines the backlog of legal cases in the UK is taking a heavy toll on everyone from the people involved who are seeking resolution to the legal profession itself. That's the story today, but it was also the story back in 1666 when after a year of plague and then the Great Fire of London, our capital city was crippled by a legal backlog which made economic recovery and the rebuilding that it required all but impossible. The challenge then was to deal with all the cases to do with Landlords and Leaseholders who had lost everything in the fire and so couldn't afford to begin the rebuilding process. Jonathan is joined by the historian Professor Jay Tidmarsh who will tell the story of the Fire Courts and Fire Judges, set up to deal with the backlog as quickly and efficiently as possible. What they did, how the courts operated and just how much work they got through in less than a decade might provide some ideas for today's legal practitioners. To compare the history with the present Jonathan also hears from the Chair of the Bar Council Amanda Pinto and Sir Ernest Ryder a Lord Justice of Appeal, master of Pembroke College, Oxford and a law reformer. That's the Long View of Legal Backlogs. Producer: Tom Alban

What will the seminar cover?Appeals are characterised by a tension between two competing considerations. On the one hand, appeals serve an important public and private function in correcting errors by trial judges. On the other, appellate courts must be cognisant of their natural limitations and must give due respect to the advantages enjoyed by trial judges. How this dichotomy between appellate obligation and appellate restraint is resolved determines not only how appellate courts decide appeals, but also how counsel argue appeals.Viewers will join an English Court of Appeal judge and experienced counsel in a discussion of the diverging approaches to this issue taken by Australian and English law.Topics of discussion include:- The functions of the Queensland Court of Appeal and the English Court of Appeal- The standard of appellate review applicable to four types of first instance decision- The differences between Australian and English law- Whether Queensland v Masson [2020] HCA 28 would have been decided differently in the UKWho should listen?All law practitioners, but particularly commercial lawyers, litigators and their clients.PRESENTERSDiscussion Chair: Roger Traves QC (barrister, Level Twenty Seven Chambers)The session Chair has appeared as counsel on numerous Court of Appeal cases across a spectrum of commercial cases, most recently State of Queensland v Masson which went to the High Court.UK perspective: Sir Richard McCombe (Lord Justice of Appeal, Court of Appeal of England and Wales)Chambers warmly welcomes our guest speaker. Richard was a practising barrister in the UK from 1975 until his appointment to the High Court of England and Wales in 2001. He was Presiding Judge of the Northern Circuit 2004-7 and appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal in 2012.Australia perspective: Mohammud Jaamae Hafeez-Baig (barrister, Level Twenty Seven Chambers)Additional materialsThe video recording of the session is published here.A list of the cases cited by the panel is available here.Liability limited by a scheme approved under the professional standards legislation

Lee and Gwilym's guest this week is such an IP VIP that he barely needs an introduction. Sir Robin Jacob was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal in October 2003 and continues to sit from time to time in the Court of Appeal. He is also wonderful speaker and raconteur, so sit back and enjoy an armchair chat with one of the UK's most influential figures in IP.

Jemar Tisby is joined by Executive Producer Beau York to discuss the murder of George Floyd, the Minneapolis uprising, and place the current events within a historical context.

On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'. This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health. For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'. This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health. For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.

James Doe interviews Sir Rupert Jackson, a barrister, former Lord Justice of Appeal and international arbitrator, to discuss his views on various aspects of construction law and practice. Speakers: James Doe (Partner, UK Head of Construction & Infrastructure Disputes), Sir Rupert Jackson

Lord Thomas was called to the bar in 1969 and after a long and distinguished career became Chief Justice of England and Wales between 2013 and 2017.  In this interview we talk about his early career and what led him to that role and what he is involved in today and what it is like being a peer in the House of Lords.  We also talk about the place of the Judiciary and role of the Judge.  He was the New Zealand Law Foundation’s 2019 Distinguished Visiting Fellow and visited New Zealand in September 2019 where he spoke at the Canterbury University Law School. In this interview we talk about a variety of topics including constitutional reform, being somewhere where something happens, having a young family and a busy career, changes to the practise of law since he began working, being in Chicago in the late 1960s, what it is like to be a Judge, digitising of the Courts and being involved in Constitutional changes, the role of law schools of the future, as well as joining the House of Lords. Seeds is all about hearing diverse and varying perspectives and life journeys, which is why this interview fits so well with others even if they cover the life story of a Nun, someone who has been trafficked or someone who is 6 years old.  There are many dozens of interviews in the back catalogue now at www.theseeds.nz  A very big thanks to The Law Foundation as well as Canterbury University Law School for arranging this interview (in particular, Stephen Todd, Ursula Cheer, Elizabeth Toomey and Julie Scott). Full Bio: https://arbitratorsinternational.com/arbitrator/lord-thomas-of-cwmgiedd/ Information about the trip: https://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/?p=9731&e=1 From The Law Foundation description: "Lord Thomas read law at Trinity Hall, Cambridge and the University of Chicago Law School and was called to the bar by Gray’s Inn. He practiced at the Commercial Bar in London from 1972 to 1996, becoming a QC in 1984. He was appointed to the High Court of England and Wales in 1996. He was successively a Presiding Judge in Wales, Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court, the Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, a Lord Justice of Appeal, President of the Queen’s Bench Division and Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (2013 - 2017). He was a founder of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary and its President from 2008-2010. He is currently Chairman of the Commission on Justice in Wales, Chairman of the London Financial Markets Law Committee and President of the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre. He also sits in the House of Lords. He has returned to Essex Court Chambers where he practices as an arbitrator. He is Chancellor of the Aberystwyth University and is an honorary fellow of several universities. He is a founder member of the European Law Institute and is currently a member of its Executive Committee."  

This talk will consider the changes which have taken place in recent years in attitudes towards questions of public international law and of foreign affairs when they arise in the context of domestic litigation. David Lloyd Jones, Lord Lloyd-Jones, became a Justice of The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in October 2017. Lord Lloyd-Jones was born and brought up in Pontypridd, Glamorgan. He attended Pontypridd Boys' Grammar School and Downing College, Cambridge of which he was a Fellow from 1975 to 1991. At the Bar his practice included international law, EU law and public law. He was amicus curiae (independent advisor to the court) in the Pinochet litigation before the House of Lords. Lord Lloyd-Jones was appointed to the High Court in 2005. From 2008 to 2011 he served as a Presiding Judge on the Wales Circuit and Chair of the Lord Chancellor's Standing Committee on the Welsh Language. In 2012 he was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal and from 2012 to 2015 he was Chairman of the Law Commission. Lord Lloyd-Jones is the first Justice of the Supreme Court to come from Wales.

On Monday 5 September in the Moot Court Room of the Faculty of Law, Lord Justice Rupert Jackson delivered a talk entitled 'Legal Aid and the Costs Review Reforms'. In it, he considered Government proposals to reduce public financial support for civil proceedings through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, implementing some of Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations in his Civil Litigation Costs Review. Following the talk, there was discussion by academics and practitioners.

On Monday 5 September in the Moot Court Room of the Faculty of Law, Lord Justice Rupert Jackson delivered a talk entitled 'Legal Aid and the Costs Review Reforms'. In it, he considered Government proposals to reduce public financial support for civil proceedings through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, implementing some of Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations in his Civil Litigation Costs Review. Following the talk, there was discussion by academics and practitioners.

On Monday 5 September in the Moot Court Room of the Faculty of Law, Lord Justice Rupert Jackson delivered a talk entitled 'Legal Aid and the Costs Review Reforms'. In it, he considered Government proposals to reduce public financial support for civil proceedings through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, implementing some of Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations in his Civil Litigation Costs Review. Following the talk, there was discussion by academics and practitioners.

On Monday 5 September in the Moot Court Room of the Faculty of Law, Lord Justice Rupert Jackson delivered a talk entitled 'Legal Aid and the Costs Review Reforms'. In it, he considered Government proposals to reduce public financial support for civil proceedings through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, implementing some of Lord Justice Jackson's recommendations in his Civil Litigation Costs Review. Following the talk, there was discussion by academics and practitioners.

In this episode Kevin is joined by Sir Rupert Jackson – barrister, former Lord Justice of Appeal and legal reformer. As well as his infamous reform of civil litigation costs, Rupert has authored some of the industry's leading texts during his 50-year career. Now, back at the Bar, he talks through the fresh challenges facing lawyers, and discusses his new role as a justice in the AIFC Court and International Arbitration Centre in Kazakhstan. Find out more at tr.com/TheHearing

In this episode Kevin is joined by Sir Rupert Jackson – barrister, former Lord Justice of Appeal and legal reformer. As well as his infamous reform of civil litigation costs, Rupert has authored some of the industry's leading texts during his 50-year career. Now, back at the Bar, he talks through the fresh challenges facing lawyers, and discusses his new role as a justice in the AIFC Court and International Arbitration Centre in Kazakhstan. Find out more at tr.com/TheHearing

Sir Rupert Jackson, a Lord Justice of Appeal, and Hon Fellow of Jesus College, spoke on the topic 'Was it All Worth It?' at Clare College, Cambridge, on 5 March 2018. During the last ten years Sir Rupert has been the main influence on the reform of civil justice in England and Wales. His official reports have been aimed at promoting access to justice at proportionate cost. His 2009 recommendations were implemented in 2013. His recent proposals are under consideration.

Sir Rupert Jackson, a Lord Justice of Appeal, and Hon Fellow of Jesus College, spoke on the topic 'Was it All Worth It?' at Clare College, Cambridge, on 5 March 2018. During the last ten years Sir Rupert has been the main influence on the reform of civil justice in England and Wales. His official reports have been aimed at promoting access to justice at proportionate cost. His 2009 recommendations were implemented in 2013. His recent proposals are under consideration.

Sir Rupert Jackson, a Lord Justice of Appeal, and Hon Fellow of Jesus College, spoke on the topic 'Was it All Worth It?' at Clare College, Cambridge, on 5 March 2018. During the last ten years Sir Rupert has been the main influence on the reform of civil justice in England and Wales. His official reports have been aimed at promoting access to justice at proportionate cost. His 2009 recommendations were implemented in 2013. His recent proposals are under consideration.

Sir Rupert Jackson, a Lord Justice of Appeal, and Hon Fellow of Jesus College, spoke on the topic 'Was it All Worth It?' at Clare College, Cambridge, on 5 March 2018. During the last ten years Sir Rupert has been the main influence on the reform of civil justice in England and Wales. His official reports have been aimed at promoting access to justice at proportionate cost. His 2009 recommendations were implemented in 2013. His recent proposals are under consideration.

The Rt Hon Sir Peter Gross explores the aspects of and changes in judicial leadership in the 2016 annual Gray's Inn Reading http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/judicial-leadership History portrays judges as passive umpires, ensuring fair play between litigants at trial before delivering judgement on their disputes. We have over the last thirty years travelled a considerable distance away from that historic picture. In this year's lecture Sir Peter Gross, Lord Justice of Appeal and formerly Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, considers how the modern judiciary has to now undertake a wide-ranging and active leadership role both inside and outside court and how that role may evolve in the future.The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/judicial-leadership Gresham College has been giving free public lectures since 1597. This tradition continues today with all of our five or so public lectures a week being made available for free download from our website. There are currently over 1,900 lectures free to access or download from the website.Website: http://www.gresham.ac.uk Twitter: http://twitter.com/GreshamCollege Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/greshamcollege Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/greshamcollege

Rt Hon Sir John Laws, Lord Justice of Appeal, here explains the value of discussing the law with barristers-in-training at Cumberland Lodge. Cumberland Lodge www.cumberlandlodge.ac.uk is the home of an educational charity, founded in 1947 to promote ethical discussion and cross-disciplinary collaboration Registered charity: 1108677

From 15 to 17 September 2014, the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge held a major international conference on Public Law. It was intended to be the first of what will become a biennial series of conferences. The theme for the inaugural Public Law Conference was "Process and Substance in Public Law". The conference brought together academics, judges and practitioners from a range of Public Law fields and a variety of common law jurisdictions. The intention was that the Public Law series should become a pre-eminent forum for the discussion of Public Law matters in the common law world. In this video, Cambridge's Professor David Feldman is in Professor holds a conversation with Lord Justice Laws (Judge of the England and Wales Court of Appeal) about Public Law issues. For more information about the Public Law Conference, please refer to the conference website at: http://www.publiclawconference.law.cam.ac.uk/

From 15 to 17 September 2014, the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge held a major international conference on Public Law. It was intended to be the first of what will become a biennial series of conferences. The theme for the inaugural Public Law Conference was "Process and Substance in Public Law". The conference brought together academics, judges and practitioners from a range of Public Law fields and a variety of common law jurisdictions. The intention was that the Public Law series should become a pre-eminent forum for the discussion of Public Law matters in the common law world. In this video, Cambridge's Professor David Feldman is in Professor holds a conversation with Lord Justice Laws (Judge of the England and Wales Court of Appeal) about Public Law issues. For more information about the Public Law Conference, please refer to the conference website at: http://www.publiclawconference.law.cam.ac.uk/ This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

From 15 to 17 September 2014, the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge held a major international conference on Public Law. It was intended to be the first of what will become a biennial series of conferences. The theme for the inaugural Public Law Conference was "Process and Substance in Public Law". The conference brought together academics, judges and practitioners from a range of Public Law fields and a variety of common law jurisdictions. The intention was that the Public Law series should become a pre-eminent forum for the discussion of Public Law matters in the common law world. In this video, Cambridge's Professor David Feldman is in Professor holds a conversation with Lord Justice Laws (Judge of the England and Wales Court of Appeal) about Public Law issues. For more information about the Public Law Conference, please refer to the conference website at: http://www.publiclawconference.law.cam.ac.uk/

From 15 to 17 September 2014, the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge held a major international conference on Public Law. It was intended to be the first of what will become a biennial series of conferences. The theme for the inaugural Public Law Conference was "Process and Substance in Public Law". The conference brought together academics, judges and practitioners from a range of Public Law fields and a variety of common law jurisdictions. The intention was that the Public Law series should become a pre-eminent forum for the discussion of Public Law matters in the common law world. In this video, Cambridge's Professor David Feldman is in Professor holds a conversation with Lord Justice Laws (Judge of the England and Wales Court of Appeal) about Public Law issues. For more information about the Public Law Conference, please refer to the conference website at: http://www.publiclawconference.law.cam.ac.uk/

On Thursday 13 March 2014 Lord Justice Patrick Elias spoke at an event held by Lucy Cavendish College on the subject of "Religion, Law & the Limits of Tolerance".

On Thursday 13 March 2014 Lord Justice Patrick Elias spoke at an event held by Lucy Cavendish College on the subject of "Religion, Law & the Limits of Tolerance".

On Thursday 13 March 2014 Lord Justice Patrick Elias spoke at an event held by Lucy Cavendish College on the subject of "Religion, Law & the Limits of Tolerance".

On Thursday 13 March 2014 Lord Justice Patrick Elias spoke at an event held by Lucy Cavendish College on the subject of "Religion, Law & the Limits of Tolerance".

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice of Appeal, gave a talk entitled "Justice and Public Will" on Friday 21 February 2014 at the Faculty of Law, as a guest on the regular CULS speaker programme, This event was kindly Sponsored by Simmons & Simmons. For more information see the CULS website at: https://culs.org.uk

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice of Appeal, gave a talk entitled "Justice and Public Will" on Friday 21 February 2014 at the Faculty of Law, as a guest on the regular CULS speaker programme, This event was kindly Sponsored by Simmons & Simmons. For more information see the CULS website at: https://culs.org.uk

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice of Appeal, gave a talk entitled "Justice and Public Will" on Friday 21 February 2014 at the Faculty of Law, as a guest on the regular CULS speaker programme, This event was kindly Sponsored by Simmons & Simmons. For more information see the CULS website at: https://culs.org.uk

Episode 6 - In this episode, Bill Marsh gets behind the official Sir Alan Ward, in an interview which reveals the wit and charm of the new Chair of the CMC. Sir Alan was born and raised in South Africa and practiced as an Attorney of the Supreme Court. In 1961, he moved to England to take a second degree, reading law at Cambridge. He was called to the bar (Gray's Inn) in 1964 and was appointed a High Court judge in October 1988 and was assigned to the Family Division. In 1995, he was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal and retired 15 February 2013 enabling him to join the CMC. A long time supporter of mediation, Sir Alan recently said ‘I am utterly convinced mediation has an increasing part to play in providing civil justice. The CMC is at the epicenter of promoting all forms of mediation and maintaining the standards necessary to ensure its success. It is therefore a great honour to succeed Sir Henry Brooke, Lord Slynn and Sir Brian Neill at this crucial time.’

School of Law 25th Annual Essex Law Lecture - Sir Stanley Burnton (former Lord Justice of Appeal) speaks about 'The Internationalisation of English Law'.

Studying law at University is not a vital prerequisite for a distinguished career in legal practice. But those advocating the non-law route into the profession may undervalue the benefits of the law degree, both for those intending to practise and those not so intending. This important debate examined the arguments on Wednesday 27th February 2013 at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Sumption spoke for the motion. Professor Graham Virgo of the Faculty spoke against. The debate was be chaired by Sir Patrick Elias, Lord Justice of Appeal. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Studying law at University is not a vital prerequisite for a distinguished career in legal practice. But those advocating the non-law route into the profession may undervalue the benefits of the law degree, both for those intending to practise and those not so intending. This important debate examined the arguments on Wednesday 27th February 2013 at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Sumption spoke for the motion. Professor Graham Virgo of the Faculty spoke against. The debate was be chaired by Sir Patrick Elias, Lord Justice of Appeal. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Studying law at University is not a vital prerequisite for a distinguished career in legal practice. But those advocating the non-law route into the profession may undervalue the benefits of the law degree, both for those intending to practise and those not so intending. This important debate examined the arguments on Wednesday 27th February 2013 at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Sumption spoke for the motion. Professor Graham Virgo of the Faculty spoke against. The debate was be chaired by Sir Patrick Elias, Lord Justice of Appeal. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Studying law at University is not a vital prerequisite for a distinguished career in legal practice. But those advocating the non-law route into the profession may undervalue the benefits of the law degree, both for those intending to practise and those not so intending. This important debate examined the arguments on Wednesday 27th February 2013 at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Sumption spoke for the motion. Professor Graham Virgo of the Faculty spoke against. The debate was be chaired by Sir Patrick Elias, Lord Justice of Appeal.

Studying law at University is not a vital prerequisite for a distinguished career in legal practice. But those advocating the non-law route into the profession may undervalue the benefits of the law degree, both for those intending to practise and those not so intending. This important debate examined the arguments on Wednesday 27th February 2013 at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Sumption spoke for the motion. Professor Graham Virgo of the Faculty spoke against. The debate was be chaired by Sir Patrick Elias, Lord Justice of Appeal.

Studying law at University is not a vital prerequisite for a distinguished career in legal practice. But those advocating the non-law route into the profession may undervalue the benefits of the law degree, both for those intending to practise and those not so intending. This important debate examined the arguments on Wednesday 27th February 2013 at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. Justice of The Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Sumption spoke for the motion. Professor Graham Virgo of the Faculty spoke against. The debate was be chaired by Sir Patrick Elias, Lord Justice of Appeal. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

First, last year, David Cameron called on Lord Justice Leveson to recommend a new regulatory system for the press. Then, yesterday, after he'd made his recommendations, Leveson LJ passed responsibility for the next steps back to the government - they, he said, must decide "who guards the guards". Where does that leave the industry, whose own plans for self-regulation were rejected by the inquiry? How much of the Leveson scheme can they accept and what can or should they now offer to meet the calls for independent self-regulation? To explore the behind-the-scenes negotiations, Steve Hewlett talks to a range of editors tasked with finding a solution: Peter Wright, former editor of the Mail on Sunday, Chris Blackhurst, editor of The Independent, John Witherow, editor of the Sunday Times, Trevor Kavanagh, associate editor of The Sun and Anne Pickles, associate editor of The Cumberland News and the News and Star which are part of the Cumbrian Newspaper Group. Producer Beverley Purcell.

Claire Bolderson profiles Lord Justice Leveson, the judge who is leading the public inquiry into the phone hacking scandal and relationships between politicians, journalists and police officers. Brian Leveson was born and brought up in Liverpool and worked there, as a young barrister, for a number of years before becoming a QC. His later career involved some of the biggest commercial trials of the time - among them BCCI, Polly Peck and Barings. He also prosecuted Ken Dodd on behalf of the Inland Revenue and, in a rare setback, he lost the case. And he's turned his hand to the criminal bar and prosecuted one of the UK's most infamous serial killers - Rosemary West. If he handles the public inquiry into phone hacking successfully, many believe he will be one step closer to the ultimate legal prize - the position of Lord Chief Justice. Contributors Judge Henry Globe Dominic Carman Sasha Wass QC Producers: Rosamund Jones Linda Pressly.

Professor Sir Robin Auld was the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor in Legal Science for 2009 - 2010. He was a former Lord Justice of Appeal; Justice, Bermuda Court of Appeal; President, Solomon Islands Court of Appeal; and led a Commission of Inquiry into Governmental Corruption in the Turks & Caicos Islands. He is a Member of Lamb Chambers. Sir Robin was interviewed on 9 December 2009, in the Squire Law Library. For more information, see the Squire website at http://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent_scholars/

Richard Susskind welcomes Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. She was the first female Lord Justice of Appeal and, until 2004, was the highest-ranking female judge in the United Kingdom. Until June 2007, she chaired the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Fayed. She stood down from that task with effect from that date, and the inquest was conducted by Lord Justice Scott Baker.Professor Susskind and Baroness Butler-Slosstalks through her work within family law, which touches on everything from divorce to competnecy hearing in medical cases.

Professor Susskind and The Rt Hon Lord Justice Auld discuss reform of the criminal courts and the criminal justice system (including the role of juries and magistrates) and outline the work of the Court of Appeal. They draw comparisons between the British and American legal systems, and expose...