Controversy is once again swirling around the bar of the Garrick Club – this time due to disagreements over the legal advice the club has taken over changing its rules on admitting women.
There has been weeks of backfire against the club after it was revealed all of the legal professionals – including judges – who were members of the London’s men-only club.
The members club will hold a vote in the coming weeks on whether to admit women.
Last Friday, after legal advice from Lord Pannick KC of Blackstone Chambers, the club’s general committee concluded that in fact the Garrick’s membership rules might never have excluded women.
Lord Pannick’s opinion – along with Blackstone’s junior Emily Neill – stated that “the rules do not exclude women from eligibility for membership of the club.”
He explained “the approach in the rules is to give a wide discretion to the general committee as to the election of members. The only express restriction on the persons who may be members relates to circumstances of bankruptcy.”
The famous Silk who was reportedly on £10,000 an hour during Boris’s Partygate hearing, has been at the heart of the most high-profile cases, such as Manchester City legal action against the Premier League charges.
That advice, commissioned by barrister Sir Christopher Clarke, is set to be shared with the wider membership in due course. The effect of that advice is that the vote of members will require a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority.
However, the club’s chairman also intends to distribute other legal advice which sits contrary to Lord Pannick’s, commissioned by other members.
City A.M. now understands that Sir Christopher – one of the leading advocates for admitting women into the almost 200 year old club – has attempted to stop that contrary legal advice being distributed to the membership.
In a correspondence with the club chairman Chris Kirker which has been circulated amongst a number of members , Sir Christopher writes to send out alternate legal advice would be “unwise” and says it would “confuse and mislead.”
The attempt to quash alternative legal views to that of Lord Pannick has further provoked members of the club who are concerned the Garrick’s rules are being changed under the glare of the media spotlight.
Garrick member Edward Henry KC wrote earlier this week [on Joshua Rosenburg’s blog] that he felt the legal advice from Lord Pannick was ‘flawed’ and that he had been ‘poorly instructed’.