Mrs Blair who hates smoking will now defend seedy clubs who want smoking. Is this hypocrisy?

Answers:
Lawyers, judges, and legislators ALL struggle to separate their personal opinions from what is called for under the law in doing their jobs. An example of this might be me as a juror sincerely believing that the accused is guilty, but voting to acquit because the prosecutor failed to prove his case. Is that hypocracy? I don't think so! That's what the law mandates that I do!

The same goes for Mrs. Blair--whoever she is! So she personally hates smoking. If she feels that under the law a seedy club has the right to exist, even though its seedy, she could justify defending them. And if she feels the law supports their stance on smoking, AGAIN I say it, she can justify defending them.

Some lawyers would not take the case. It's a personal decision. But I don't think many people would call that hypocracy.

---

Good question. One would think so at first thought.however, just because you don't like something doesn't mean that you still believe in others having the right to do what they want. For instance....I don't like it when I have neighbors who have loud hot rods and motor cycles..But if someone tried to tell them that they could not have these items I would fight for their rights b/c it's not fair to them, they have every right to own those items.

Make sense?

---

One rule for them and one rule for the rest of us!

---

You not realised that horse faced horse hipped b itch is a self
serving hypocrite yet?No wonder our country is in the state it is.

---

No. A lawyer represents whoever asks them. If they didn't then people accused of terrible crimes like terrorism or paedophilia couldn't find anyone to defend them.
In the UK everyone's entitled to a fair trial with as good a defence as they can afford.

---

Did you really expect anything else from the W.W.!

---

Sounds about right, that man has always had double standards, maybe because now he's unemployed and nothing to do, he may well want to start hanging around these type of premises again ! lets face it, would you want to spend the whole day with Cheri ?

---

No, it's politics.

---

When it suits Mrs.Blair and Ms.Booth are two different people who both like a nice little earner even if it means embarrassing that ghastly man they share a bed with.

---

No it is not hypocrisy.Mrs B is a lawyer.
It is the job of lawyers to lie in court on behalf of their clients.
It is the English way.

The legal system in England uses the adversarial system. This means that the truth is of little importance. All that matters is winning the case.
Most English lawyers treat their cases as a game, otherwise they would become involved and end up in mental hospitals.

---

I am shocked at such cynicism amoungst the Yahoo community. (not!)
Cherie Blair(Booth) QC is a member of the Bar.
As such, she has a professional obligation to represent the next client who comes along assuming
(i) it's within her expertise and
(ii) the case properly merits someone of her seniority.
It's called the cab-rank rule (it does not apply to solicitors) and if she refused to adhere to it she'd find herself in front of her disciplinary body (the Bar Council) pretty sharpish.

Now, the owner of this seedy club clearly realised that if he got CB QC to represent him, he'd get publicity above and beyond any legal fees he'd have to pay.
And he was right!
This non-story is all over the papers and is even on FreeLawAnswer.com .
How many other cases in which CBQC acted, can you recall? Exactly!
He has not issued a claim; CB is merely providing him with legal advice.
He must know, and has no doubt been advised, that he has no legal prospects of sucess whatsoever in challenging this ban.
But what does he care? We're all talking about his seedy little club!

It seems clear that some of the answerers on here have the luxury of deciding whether or not their income comes from a morally upright source and can pick and chose their clients depending on their respective virtue.
And I'm sure all of them only accept money from God-fearing paragons who'd make that bloke from Little House on the Prairie seem a bit shifty.

Barristers have no such right and moreover have a specific professional obligation not to make such moral judgements.

Sorry if the answer is not quite as glib and pithy as some of the others - I though you deserved an actual answer.