Talk:George Carman

message: A selection of British Newspaper reviews of 'No Ordinary Man':
Peter Preston, Observer:  
'Not good enough (in perception, judgment, prose or, most dismayingly, fact-checking). The bile flows too fast and free, filling the cracks between the case studies. Dominic Carman tells the wrong story in No Ordinary Man...Pass the sick bag, Malice. Dominic treats Karen Phillips - the lawyer who shared some of his father's last 15 years - with a sniping contempt. He doesn't explain how the clerks and juniors who worked with Carman in New Court Chambers retained such a keen affection for this monster, why, with all his faults, they were still proud to stand in his shadow. He can't adequately account for George's bravery in working on as his cancer spread. One day, maybe, there'll be a book about George Carman which does justice to his essential brilliance and leaves the garbage in the can. But, for that to happen, the spotlight has to stay on the only stage that counts: in court, not caught playing some hand-me-down version of Joe Lampton.'
Alan Rushbridger, The Guardian:
'Dominic Carman has written a strange, unsettling book. According to Dominic Carman, it was his dying father's idea that his only son should write his life story. If so, then he must have assumed that the biography would be informed by some strand of filial affection and loyalty. Never in his worst nightmares could he have anticipated that his son would have produced this searing account of his life, lucratively serialised - and embellished with additional material - in the Sunday newspapers. It is a well-known plank of British law that you cannot libel the dead. Dominic Carman was undoubtedly wise to wait until his father was safely interred in the Catholic cemetery at St Mary's, Kensal Rise, before publishing this biography of the legendary defamation silk. 
The Scotsman:
'Dominic Carman is author of his father's controversial biography. George Carman was not posthumously smeared by an investigative author such as Andrew Morton, Kitty Kelly or Tom Bower. He was shopped by his own son, Dominic. When the first extract of the biography appeared in a Sunday newspaper, Karen Phillips, the barrister who had a long platonic and live-in relationship with Carman, said: "It’s like a tabloid version of Mommie Dearest, the book by Joan Crawford’s daughter." 
The book has also produced a schism in the author’s own family, with Dominic’s son by his first marriage, Matthew Carman, rushing to the barricades in defence of his grandfather. In a letter to the media last week the 17-year-old wrote a strong rebuttal to the slur on his grandfather, insisting he was a "kind, honest and loving man". '
Jonathan Aitken, The Telegraph:
'The old legal adage that "The defendant who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" might now, in the light of this book, be rewritten as "The lawyer who appoints his son his biographer is a fool about his own reputation."'
Elizabeth Grice, The Telegraph:
It has not, then, been a comfortable few days for Dominic Carman, who is rapidly being cast as the son from hell. 
Dominic Carman, letter to The Telegraph:
'SIR - When writing No Ordinary Man, the biography of my father, George Carman QC, I anticipated some personal criticism and accept that as justified.'
As the author of No Ordinary Man and a journalist, I feel it is somewhat regrettable that a proper cross-section of published opinion is not given on this page. There were many favourable reviews published in the national newspapers of my book in addition to the critical comments quoted above.  Might it possible to achieve some sort of balanced perspective here, rather than a one sided selection?  
Many thanks Dominic Carman.
-Surely any decent journalist would concede that reviews from four different major national newspapers would be considered a proper cross-section. Taking reviews of a book from newspapers that paid huge amounts of money for lucrative serialisations would no doubt lead to a much more one sided, biased account.
::On the other hand, Jonathan Aitken is not exactly unbiased either, since George effectively put him away. I worked for Dominic Carman (on a magazine he published) whilst he was writing the book. He is a very good journalist, and interviewed over 100 people for the book. Tony Spencer 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'No Ordinary Man'

message: It says he first rose to prominence after the Thorpe conspiracy trial, but he was made a QC years earlier. Is this rise to fame in the public eye? Feel free to change my last edit (see History) if you so wish. Nicholassharland 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early success

message: He was less known for his heavy drinking and physical abuse of his wife. was added by User:86.136.11.173. Does this come from the son's book, or another source, or is it unverifiable? RupertMillard (Talk) 20:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drinking and wife beating

message: I removed the refimprove tag in this section, having added citations for all the cases described. Matuko 22:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Cases 

message: I was called to the Bar in 1984 and I’ve never heard of a “third-party” degree. Should this be “third class”? Unfortunately I’m not able to access the source.—ukexpat (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Third-party degree”?