From the Bennett entail to Edward Casaubon's vindictive codicil, whimsical wills have provided great plots. And scarcely a week goes by without a story of some nutter leaving a fortune to the cats' home, or far more irrationally "to whoever was the party of government of the day". People are free, in this country, to dispose of their property as they wish, and that freedom cannot be denied to those with more money than sense. Soliciitors must simply carry out their clients' wishes within the law, however unfair or bizarre those wishes may be. But it is quite another thing for solicitors to condone, aid and abet injustice by providing guidance and a template to implement it. It was with horror that I read Esmerelda's post below on sharia-compliant wills. Note, as Esmerelda says, how quielty it is being done.
Harry''s Place links to a piece by Sadikur Rahman of the National Secular Society:
Now, of course a person has always been able to distribute their assets in any way they wish and a Muslim may completely legally have distributed their assets according to sharia principles, without letting the lawyer know the basis of the instructions. The difference now is that a solicitor could offer this service to a Muslim client and the Muslim client can say they want to distribute their assets in a certain way because of their religious requirement.
This guidance essentially provides legitimacy to use a system of law that is discriminatory towards women, particularly in the area of inheritance provisions. There seems no recognition of the fact that solicitors are being asked to use and accommodate instructions which in any other circumstances would be socially unacceptable or at which a solicitor may balk. Suppose a client instructed that their assets should not go to a relative because they happened to be of a different colour?
This raises serious questions about professional ethics and the role of the Law Society. The guidance seems not to recognise that there is a serious potential conflict between the Code of Conduct for solicitors and the guidance. Here is what the Code of Conduct – which all solicitors must abide by – says about equality and diversity (at Chapter 2):
"This chapter is about encouraging equality of opportunity and respect for diversity, and preventing unlawful discrimination, in your relationship with your clients and others. The requirements apply in relation to age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
"Everyone needs to contribute to compliance with these requirements, for example by treating each other, and clients, fairly and with respect, by embedding such values in the workplace and by challenging inappropriate behaviour and processes. Your role in embedding these values will vary depending on your role.
"As a matter of general law you must comply with requirements set out in legislation – including the Equality Act 2010 – as well as the conduct duties contained in this chapter."
The Code of Conduct makes it clear that solicitors cannot discriminate, yet this guidance is encouraging us to facilitate discrimination in advising Muslim clients on their wills. Even accepting that testators have the right to act in a discriminatory fashion with their assets if they choose to, this guidance encourages solicitors to adopt a different approach to clients who are deemed "different" – in this case clients who are Muslim. It creates a damaging assumption that Muslims on their death will want to distribute their assets in accordance with sharia law – with all the discrimination that comes with that. This is the "racism of lower expectations". Furthermore, the Law Society has set the scene for further disharmony: the guidance states at Section 1.2 that "There are specific differences between Sunni and Shia rules on succession. These differences are not covered in this practice note…" In time will the Law Society publish different guidance notes for different branches of Islam? Should it be the role of a secular organisation such as the Law Society – an organisation which occupies precious ground in our democracy – to take a view on theological matters?
The language in the guidance is innocuous and very technical, suggesting somehow that it is nothing unusual and just another area of legitimate expertise for solicitors. It is nothing of the sort. It is a dangerous precedent: legitimising a discriminatory practice, which without this guidance clients may have been embarrassed to ask about. But now that the Law Society has said it's perfectly fine for lawyers to draft wills in this manner, I'm afraid it will become increasingly prevalent in England. It also sows the seeds for more sharia law in other areas.
The guidance should be withdrawn. Solicitors are still officers of the Court and have a duty as clearly stated in the Code of Conduct to abide by the Equality Act. How solicitors can do this and still draft "sharia compliant" wills is beyond me.
Now the news is out in the open, and Baroness Cox is on the case, I hope that the Law Society will come under pressure to withdraw this guidance. It is to be hoped that they have escaped criticism so far because of the back-door way in which this disgusting abuse of English law has been pushed through, and not because of non-Muslim apathy.
This is about non-muslim lawyers getting a piece of the ever growing sharia pie.
It's a situation where (mostly) white, male lawyers stand to make additional profits on the backs of intimidated third world women.
Were you a Muslimah who'd just recieved only half of what your brother has just inherited, and if you were of a mind to contest the sharia-compliant nonsense, what are the chances you'd risk incurring the wrath of your entire extended family in doing so?
With these guidelines, Britian's Law Society has just upped the already high levels of intimidation Muslim women have always had to endure at the hands of relatives
What's more, those same family members can now claim that the will was drawn up in accordance with guidelines provided by the country's principle ( but not principled) law association.