Luqman's musings

  Disclaimer   This post is a purely hypothetical discussion created for educational and debate purposes only. It does not describe, refer to, or imply any real individual, firm, case, or ongoing matter. Any resemblance to actual persons or events is entirely coincidental. The modern scenario outlined is fictional, and the historical example referenced is drawn from publicly available records of disciplinary actions taken decades ago, without naming or identifying any person. Nothing in this post should be read as an allegation, accusation, or statement of fact about any current or past professional. Readers should not rely on this discussion for legal or regulatory advice; if you have concerns about actual conduct, seek guidance from qualified professionals or the relevant regulatory body.

  A recent reflection in LinkedIn argued that judges must resist the temptation to mediate sentiment or emotion, and instead ground their determinations strictly in facts, admissible evidence , and applicable law . It warned that any departure from these fundamentals risks perverting justice and rendering advocates redundant.   One recent reflection captured this principle well, and I reproduce it here in full before turning to the case I am handling: