header-logo header-logo

12 February 2026
Categories: Legal News , Charities , Pro Bono , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Championing free speech & women’s rights

A pro bono initiative to provide legal support to women and journalists around the world, the Justice Champion Program, has been launched by the Clooney Foundation for Justice (CFJ)

The CFJ will partner with leading law firms on the initiative, with litigation firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan selected as the inaugural partner. Quinn Emanuel will support the core parts of the Program, while two of its London-based associates, Marjun Parcasio and Muzhgan Wahaj, have been selected as the inaugural Justice Champion Fellows.

Since launching in 2016, the CFJ has secured more than 10,000 hours of free legal support for women facing discrimination and violence and journalists unjustly imprisoned for their work. Its work includes representing Yazidi women enslaved by ISIS, supporting survivors of atrocities in Congo and Sudan, monitoring and reporting unfair trials, challenging unjust laws in the courts and establishing legal aid clinics for the most vulnerable.

‘This partnership will help us do even more for the women and journalists we represent,’ said CFJ co-founder Amal Clooney.

‘We are lucky to count Quinn Emanuel as part of the CFJ family and very grateful for their support as our first Justice Champion partner.’

Quinn Emanuel partner Kevin Johnson said: ‘At-risk women and detained journalists around the world have an advocate they can trust in CFJ.

‘We’re proud to support that mission, and this fellowship gives our lawyers the chance to work on consequential human rights matters while making a real difference in people’s lives.’

Quinn Emanuel partner Julianne Hughes-Jennett said: ‘We look forward to using our legal skills to ensure access to justice for all.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll