The morning’s top legal affairs news stories
Would you be sent home from a law firm for refusing to wear high heels? [Legal Cheek]
Hundreds of Iraqi civilians who say they were detained and mistreated by British forces are stopped from suing the MoD for damages by senior judges [Mail Online]
What David Cameron’s anti-corruption summit did and didn’t achieve [The Economist]
Joshua Rozenberg: A judge-shaming list is bad for justice [The Guardian]
Nice try! Prem star tries to pay his way out of community service order — but judge says a fine “wouldn’t be a punishment” for rich sportsman [The Sun]
A prisoner from Teesside spent nearly a year in jail — after he forgot his solicitor’s name [Gazette Live]
Conservatives taken to court over campaign spending details [The Guardian]
Has the Human Rights Act stopped criminals being deported? [Rights Info]
The lawyer who suggested a sexual assault victim was to blame for sitting in the front of a taxi has apologised for his “inappropriate” remarks after a backlash from fellow lawyers and social media [Mail Online]
Panama Papers bubble chart shows lawyers are among most mentioned in document leak database [The Independent]
Training contract applications are now open for Shearman & Sterling [Legal Cheek Hub]
“Wearing a tie that makes you hot does not compare to the sort of medical damage wearing heels on a daily basis does — including deformed feet, bunions, weak ankles that lead to breaks and lower back problems.” [Legal Cheek Comments]
