This article was written for the course entitled Canadian Approaches to International Law, which is taught at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law. The author would like to thank Karen Knop and Angela Fernandez for their guidance and insightful comments throughout. She is also grateful for the research and archival assistance of Beatrice Tice, the faculty’s chief law librarian, and Mary Houde, administrative coordinator of the McGill University Archives.

¹ This was said by Humphrey in a letter to his sister, Ruth, while he was in law school. He was twenty-three years old. Hobbins, Alan J., “’Dear Rufus…’: A Law Student’s Life at McGill in the Roaring Twenties from Letters of John P. Humphrey” (1999) 44 McGill L.J. 753 at 775 Google Scholar [“Dear Rufus”].

² “1973 Read Medal Recipient,” Canadian Council on International Law, ˂http://www.ccil-ccdi.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=62˃; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 (III), UN GAOR, 3rd Sess., Supp. No. 13, UN Doc. A/810 (1948), 71 [Universal Declaration of Human Rights].

³ The Government of Canada fully attributes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to Humphrey. Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), (1998) 1 Canada: World View 7; Historical Minute, “Canada and the World,” History by the Minute, ˂http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?id=10219˃.

⁴ In the early 1940s, Humphrey was also involved in debates over Canada’s entrance into the Pan American Union. Humphrey’s goal in this debate was very nationalistic. He wanted to promote Canada and gain allies against American pressures: MacDonald, R. St. J., “Leadership in Law: John P. Humphrey and the Development of the International Law of Human Rights” (1991) 29 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 3 at 16–17 Google Scholar [“Leadership in Law”].

⁵ Humphrey, John P., “The Parent of Anarchy” (1946) 1 Int’l J. 11 at 15 Google Scholar [“Parent of Anarchy”].

⁶ Humphrey was actually forced to retire at this time, as the UN has a mandatory retirement age of sixty. It is unclear whether he would have chosen to stay beyond this time, had he been given the choice.

⁷ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 29.

⁸ Ibid. at 4–5.

⁹ Ibid. at 7.

¹⁰ “Dear Rufus,” supra note 1 at 769.

¹¹ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 4.

¹² Ibid. at 8 . J.C. Hemeon, professor of economics at McGill, advised Humphrey that he would be a “marked man” if he accepted the position. Humphrey was later very appreciative of this advice.

¹³ Ibid. at 6. This perception had much to do with his travels in England. While he realized that Canada had much in common with the United Kingdom, he was also “conscious of the fact that England was, if not a foreign country, at least something quite different from what I want Canada to become.”

¹⁴ Ibid. at 6.

¹⁵ Humphrey in letters to his sister expressed guilt over the poverty faced by many Canadians, as he had a well-payingjob. Alan J. Hobbins, “Mentor and Protégé: Percy Elwood Corbett’s Relationship with John Peters Humphrey” (1991) 37 Can. Y.B. Int’l Law 3 at 17 [“Mentor and Protégé”].

¹⁶ Hobbins, Alan J., “Humphrey and the Old Revolution: Human Rights in the Age of Mistrust” (1998) 8 Fontanus 121 at 123 Google Scholar [“Humphrey and the Old Revolution”]. See also Leadership in Law, supra note 4 at 24–25.

¹⁷ Humphrey, John P. “Whither Canada?” (May 1940) 20 (232)Google Scholar Canadian Forum 43 at 43 [“Whither Canada?”].

¹⁸ Constitution Act, 1867 (U.K.), 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, reprinted in R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 5; Statute of Westminster, (U.K.), 22 & 23 Geo. V., c. 4, s.

¹⁹ See “Whither Canada,” supra note 17 at 43.

²⁰ Ibid. at 45.

²¹ Ibid. at 44.

²² Ibid. at 45.

²³ Hugh MacLennan, Humphrey, John P. and Vallaincourt, Émile “Canadian Unity and Quebec” (discussion on CBC Radio, 29 November 1942, 5 pm)Google Scholar [unpublished, archived at McGill University Archives (MG 4127, Cont. 18)].

²⁴ Hobbins, Alan J. “Canadian Unity and Quebec in 1942 : A Roundtable Discussion among John Humphrey, Hugh MacLennan, and Émile Vaillancourt” (1993) 6 Fontanus 119 at 124 Google Scholar [“Canadian Unity”].

²⁵ Ibid. at 124–26.

²⁶ Ibid. at 129.

²⁷ Ibid. at 130–31.

²⁸ Ibid. at 135. Roosevelt’s four freedoms are, briefly: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. They formed the backbone of the international human rights movement, as will be seen later. See “Four Freedoms,” World Civilizations, ˂http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36b.htm˃ [“Four Freedoms”].

²⁹ “Whither Canada?,” supra note 17 at 44.

³⁰ Ibid. at 45.

³¹ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 25.

³² See “Mentor and Protégé,” supra note 15.

³³ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 11–13.

³⁴ In a letter from Humphrey to his sister dated 14 March 1938, the proposed new format for the faculty of law is enclosed. While the proposal is not attributed to a particular person, it is telling that the new administration course is to be based off the French model. Humphrey, John Peters “Correspondences” (1938) [unpublished, archived at McGill University Archives (MG 4127. Box 3)].Google Scholar

³⁵ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 14–15. International organization was a move in a new direction — in the planning of the class Humphrey wrote to the Department of External Affairs Canada, and the department was quite interested in his proposal. Letter from the Department of External Affairs (8 June 1938) [archived at McGill University Archives (MG 4127, Box 11)]. It is significant to note that prior to the 1940s international organization and global governance were not mentioned in texts on international law. See, for example, Brierly, J.L. The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928)Google Scholar; Lawrence, T.J. The Principles of International Law, 7th ed., revised by Winfield, Percy H. (London: MacMillan and Company, 1927)Google Scholar; and only briefly in Wilson, George Grafton Handbook of International Law, 3rd ed. (MN: West Publishing, 1939)Google Scholar; and SirHolland, Thomas Erskine Lectures on International Law, edited by Walker, Thomas Alfred and Walker, Wyndham Legh (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1933)Google Scholar.

³⁶ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 15.

³⁷ Covenant of the League of Nations, Avalon Project at Yale Law School, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/leagcov.htm˃, preamble [Covenant].

³⁸ President Wilson qtd. in Sanderson Beck, The Messages and Papers of Woodrow Wilson, ˂http://san.beck.org/GPJ21-LeagueofNations.html#2˃. Covenant, supra note 37.

³⁹ Brian Simpson, A.W. Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) at 124–27.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ John P. Humphrey (speech presented to the Saturday Night Club, Montreal, 16 October 1935) [unpublished, archived at the McGill University Archives (MG 4127, Cont. 18)].

⁴¹ Ibid.

⁴² Prime Minister Baldwin qtd. in Library of Congress, Events Leading Up to World War II (1944) at 97, ˂http://www.gov-certificates.co.uk/birth/certificate/League_of_Nations˃.

⁴³ Documents in this period were not about “human rights” but concerned “violations against humanity.” The majority involved the treatment of prisoners of war or how a just war should be fought. Another branch focused on the abolition of slavery, with the International Labour Organization pushing for even more stringent labour standards in the 1920s. The final branch concerned the protection of citizens in foreign states, and formed the backbone of international intervention for the protection of minority populations — one state was permitted to intervene with another state’s persecution of their nationals. This went beyond place of birth, to cultural groups: minority populations were protected because the minority was likely a majority in a neighbouring state. Early examples of this were the Treaty of Vienna, 1616, the Treaty of Carolowitz, 1699, and the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, which protected religious freedom. However, it is significant that the Covenant of the League of Nations did not incorporate any provision for the protection of individual rights. Simpson, supra note 39, Chapter 3.

⁴⁴ Ibid., Chapter 5.

⁴⁵ Simpson notes that when the representative of the English Foreign Office arrived in Vienna in 1947 he had not yet heard the term “human rights.” Ibid. at 38.

⁴⁶ Ibid. at 173.

⁴⁷ “Four Freedoms,” supra note 28.

⁴⁸ Humphrey, John P. “The International Law of Human Rights in the Middle Twentieth Century,” in Bos, Maarten, ed., The Present State of International Law: 1873–1973 (The Hague: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1973), 75 at 83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar [“International Law of Human Rights”].

⁴⁹ Declaration by the United Nations between the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, and Yugoslavia, 1 January 1942, Avalon Project at Yale University, ˂http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decade03.htm˃ [emphasis added].

⁵⁰ See generally Simpson, supra note 39, Chapter 4.

⁵¹ Ibid. at 183.

⁵² Ibid. at 175.

⁵³ Ibid. at 179. The Sixth Clause does state that “all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.”

⁵⁴ The United Nations Yearbook on Human Rights (1946) demonstrated that many states were not overly optimistic about the future of an international bill of rights. Cited in Simpson, supra note 39 at 47.

⁵⁵ Chapter 9 states that the UN “should facilitate solutions of international economic, social and other humanitarian problems and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, Can. T.S. 1945 No. 7 [UN Charter].

⁵⁶ The Legal Subcommittee of the International Social Policy Committee worked with two non-governmental organizations to produce a draft Bill of Rights in December 1942 and the National Resources Planning Board published their draft in January 1943, although this was a much more domestic instrument. Simpson, supra note 39 at 186–87. It is also worth noting that the United States adopted a domestic Bill of Rights in 1946, based on this second draft, so the American hesitation towards an international bill of rights likely stemmed from conflicting government approaches to international relations.

⁵⁷ Henri Laugier, a friend of Humphrey and first under secretary-general of the Economic and Social Council, and Percy Corbett were active in this initiative. Simpson, supra note 39 at 196.

⁵⁸ Ibid. at 190–202 and 205–6; Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 2.

⁵⁹ References to human rights are found in the preamble, and Articles 1 , 13, 55, 62, and paragraphs 2, 68, and 76. UN Charter, supra note 55.

⁶⁰ In closing the conference, President Truman alluded to the creation of an international bill of rights as being part of the San Francisco Conference. “International Law of Human Rights,” supra note 48 at 84.

⁶¹ Provided for in Article 68. UN Charter, supra note 55.

⁶² “Parent of Anarchy,” supra note 5.

⁶³ Partington, John S. “H.G. Wells and the World State: A Liberal Cosmopolitan in a Totalitarian Age” (2003) 17(2) Int’l Relations 233 at 234.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Wells quoted in Partington, ibid. at 235.

⁶⁵ Ibid. at 235.

⁶⁶ Wells quoted in ibid. at 236.

⁶⁷ Corbett, P.E. Post-War Worlds (New York: Haddon Craftsmen, 1942)Google Scholar [“Post-War Worlds”].

⁶⁸ Eichelberger, Clark M. “World Government via the United Nations” (July 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 264 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 20 at 20. Eichelberger is the director for the American Association for the United Nations and of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace. He was also part of the American delegation to the United Nations Conference on International Organization (1945).

⁶⁹ Jessup is not advocating for the equality of all states and is most certainly supportive of an elite driven collective will. He accepts George Orwell’s criticism of the United Nations as being inevitable and likely preferable. In Animal Farm (1946), Orwell amends the statement “all animals are equal” to “but some animals are more equal than others.” Jessup, Philip C. A Modern Law of Nations: An Introduction (New York: MacMillan Company, 1946; reprinted 1956).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Hobbins argues that it was Corbett’s influence that guided Humphrey from a position of domestic socialism to international liberalism. “Mentor and Protégé,” supra note 15 .

⁷¹ Corbett, Percy E. “World Government: In Whose Time?” (October 1949) 25(4) Int’l Affairs 426 at 428 Google Scholar [“In Whose Time?”].

⁷² Meyer, Cord Jr. “A Plea for World Government” (July 1949)Google Scholar 264 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 6 at 8. Meyer is the American president of the United World Federalists.

⁷³ Humphrey’s project will be set out in greater detail in the latter part of the following section.

⁷⁴ John P. Humphrey (speech delivered at an unknown time and place, likely in January 1946 as there is a reference to a speech by Prime Minister McKenzie King, said to have taken place several weeks earlier. This speech occurred on 17 December 1945) [unpublished, archived at the McGill University Archive (MG 4127, Cont. 18)] [Unknown speech].

⁷⁵ Humphrey quoted in “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 29.

⁷⁶ The Canadian Forum was meant to be a political periodical and originated at the University of Toronto in the 1920s. Besides carrying political pieces the periodical also had a strong cultural component, profiling Canadian authors, poets, and artists. For a time, in the 1930s, it was operated by the League of Social Reconstruction, Canadian Encyclopedia Historica: ˂http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001289˃.

⁷⁷ Humphrey’s published work is clearly balanced towards international law and political organization, with little found of his earlier work on Canadian unity. Comments in this article are drawn from one archived manuscript, a piece published in the Canadian Forum, and a paper written by Alan Hobbins.

⁷⁸ “Parent of Anarchy,” supra note 5 at 12.

⁷⁹ The Federalist was a series of papers published in New York in the late eighteenth century. They explored the potential benefits and disadvantages of a federal system of government in the United States. See Founding Fathers, ˂http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers˃. See also “Parent of Anarchy,” supra note 5 at 17–19.

⁸⁰ Maxwell Cohen, “Canada and the International Legal Order: An Inside Perspective,” in MacDonald, R. St.J., Morris, Gerald L., and Johnston, Douglas M., eds., Canadian Perspectives on International Law and Organization (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974), 3 at 8.Google Scholar

⁸¹ While 80 percent of English Canadians were willing to allow the government to renege on their promise not to conscript Canadians, 70 percent of Québecers were not. “Canadian Unity,” supra note 24 at 124.

⁸² Ibid. at 135.

⁸³ “Parent of Anarchy,” supra note 5 at 19.

⁸⁴ It was the lack of a coherent application of law and policy that was seen as dividing Canadians. The existence of federal laws were redundant, unless they were applied equally across the country. “Canadian Unity,” supra note 24 at 135.

⁸⁵ Ibid. at 130.

⁸⁶ “Whither Canada?,” supra note 17 at 45.

⁸⁷ “Canadian Unity,” supra note 24 at 135.

⁸⁸ Ibid. The Rowell-Sirois report was created in August 1937 by Prime Minister Mackenzie King. It was meant to look at what “legislative powers [were] essential to a proper carrying out of the federal system in harmony with national needs and the promotion of national unity,” Marianopolis College, ˂http://faculty. marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/federal/rowell.htm˃.

⁸⁹ “Whither Canada?,” supra note 17 at 43–44.

⁹⁰ Ibid. at 43.

⁹¹ Humphrey, John P. Functions of Government and the Nature of Laws (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1945)Google Scholar [Functions of Government].

⁹² Humphrey, John P. “On the Definition and Nature of Laws,” (Nov. 1945)Google Scholar Mod. L. Rev. 194 at 195 [“Nature of Laws”]. See also Functions of Government, supra note 91 at 15–16.

⁹³ “Nature of Laws,” supra note 92 at 196.

⁹⁴ Ibid. at 202.

⁹⁵ Humphrey is struggling against the conception of individuals as mere “objects” of the law that was famously put forward by Oppenheim. It is interesting to note that while Lauterpacht agreed with Humphrey, that individuals must be a subject of international law, he was actually more pessimistic than Oppenheim in conceptualizing the current place of individuals in the international order. Simpson, supra note 39 at 93 .

⁹⁶ Functions of Government, supra note 91 at 12.

⁹⁷ Alexander Hamilton, cited in “Parent of Anarchy,” supra note 5 at 13–14.

⁹⁸ Humphrey, John P. “On the Foundations of International Law” (1945)Google Scholar 39 Am. J. Int’l L. 231 at 233 [“Foundations of International Law”].

⁹⁹ “Parent of Anarchy,” supra note 5 at 13. It is interesting to note that while this piece was not published until 1946, it was written in November 1945 and remains one of Humphrey’s favourite pieces. “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 25. See also “Foundations of International Law,” supra note 98.

¹⁰⁰ John P. Humphrey (speech to the Foreign Policy Association, Troy, New York, April 1942) [unpublished, archived at the McGill University Archives (MG 4127, Cont. 18)] [Foreign Policy Association speech].

¹⁰¹ See ibid.

¹⁰² “Nature of Laws,” supra note 92 at 196.

¹⁰³ Unknown Speech, supra note 74.

¹⁰⁴ Functions of Government, supra note 91 at 12 .

¹⁰⁵ The division into four functions is not as mainstream as three functions or powers, but this was also the format used by Percy Corbett. “Post-War Worlds,” supra note 67.

¹⁰⁶ Humphrey, John P. “The Theory of Separation of Functions” (1946) 6(2) U.T. L.J. 331 Google Scholar [“Separation of Functions”]. See also Functions of Government, supra note 91 at 61–62.

¹⁰⁷ “Parent of Anarchy,” supra note 5 at 14.

¹⁰⁸ John P. Humphrey, “Lecture Notes on International Law and Organization” [unpublished, archived at the McGill University Archives, appear to be from 1945 or 1946 (MG 4127, Cont. 9)] [“Lecture Notes”].

¹⁰⁹ Ibid.

¹¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹¹ “Foundations of International Law,” supra note 98 at 235.

¹¹² Unknown Speech, supra note 74.

¹¹³ Ibid. See also Stone, writing in 1932, found that the very collective action that was to preserve stability, was actually the most detrimental factor as states did not want to upset peace through all-out war, but were incapable of stopping violations of minority rights on an individual basis. Simpson, supra note 39 at 119–20.

¹¹⁴ “Parent of Anarchy,” supra note 5 at 14.

¹¹⁵ “Lecture Notes,” supra note 108.

¹¹⁶ Unknown Speech, supra note 74.

¹¹⁷ “Separation of Functions,” supra note 106. See also “Functions of Government,” supra note 91 at 62 .

¹¹⁸ Foreign Policy Association speech, supra note 100. See “Functions of Government,” supra note 91 at Chapter 2, for a more involved discussion of the func-tional benefits of federalism.

¹¹⁹ Humphrey’s analysis of federalism and the individual draws heavily from Alexander Hamilton’s writings in the Federalist. “Parent of Anarchy,” supra note 5 at 17–18.

¹²⁰ Ibid. at 21.

¹²¹ Humphrey points out that this is very troubling as it is powerful states that “are most in need of government.” Ibid.

¹²² John P. Humphrey (speech on the progress of the Declaration of Human Rights, delivered in Montreal, January 1948) [unpublished, archived at the McGill University Archive (MG 4127, Cont. 18)].

¹²³ “In Whose Time?,” supra note 71 at 427.

¹²⁴ John P. Humphrey (speech at New York University, New York City, 17 February 1949) [unpublished, archived at the McGill University Archives (MG 4127, Cont. 18)].

¹²⁵ “Lecture Notes,” supra note 108.

¹²⁶ Humphrey qtd. in “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 34.

¹²⁷ Ibid.

¹²⁸ Ibid. at 65. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), Annex, 20 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 14) at 47, UN Doc. A/6014 (1966) (entered into force 4January 1969).

¹²⁹ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, (entered into force 23 March 1976, accession by Canada 19 August 1976) [ICCPR].

¹³⁰ Humphrey had worked to have the right to petition included in the text of the Covenant itself, but this proved not to be politically viable: Ibid. The lessening of standards to gain more popular support is fundamental to regime theory, as it is expected that smaller gains will eventually lead States to be complicit in more significant projects.

¹³¹ Under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’s Optional Protocol, Article 22 of the Convention Against Torture, and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Article 77 of the Convention on Migrant Workers all involve individual complaint mechanisms: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Human Rights Bodies: Complaint Procedures,” online: United Nations, ˂http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/index.htm˃.

¹³² Humphrey, John P. “A United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: The Birth of an Initiative” (1973)Google Scholar 11 Can. Y.B. Int’l Law 220 at 222.

¹³³ Ibid. at 223.

¹³⁴ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 2.

¹³⁵ Humphrey, John P. “Human Rights: Universal Directions in the U.N. Program” (1958)Google Scholar 4 N.Y. L. For. 391 at 392. In this piece, Humphrey does acknowledge that there may be a gap between the theoretical significance of this requirement and the practical outcome. In the 1958 session, he is optimistic as thirty-five states submitted reports, but there is no mechanism to force these submissions from reluctant states.

¹³⁶ Humphrey quoted in “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 59.

¹³⁷ “Leadership in Law,” ibid. at 60.

¹³⁸ “Humphrey and the Old Revolution,” supra note 16 at 6–17.

¹³⁹ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 37.

¹⁴⁰ Ibid. at 36–38.

¹⁴¹ See generally “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4; and “Humphrey and the Old Revolution,” supra note 16.

¹⁴² MacDonald writes that Humphrey’s “departure from the Human Rights Division coincided roughly with the completion of the initial, legislative, phase of the work of the United Nations in the domain of human rights.” “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 65.

¹⁴³ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976, accession by Canada 19 August 1976); ICCPR, supra note 129.

¹⁴⁴ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 61–63.

¹⁴⁵ Resolution 1503, ESC Res. 1503(XLVIII), 48 U.N. ESCOR (No. 1A), 1693rd Mtg., UN Doc. E/4832/Add.1 (27 May 1970) at 8.

¹⁴⁶ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 78–79.

¹⁴⁷ Ibid.

¹⁴⁸ Ibid. at 82.

¹⁴⁹ There is an inference that is being drawn in this case. McGill introduced “International Law and Organization” in 1943 and the original typed lecture notes have no dates listed beyond 1945. The margins of the notes were filled with hand-written updates, but these tended to provide examples rather than change the theoretical basis.

¹⁵⁰ “Leadership in Law,” supra note 4 at 88.

¹⁵¹ Ibid. at 69.

¹⁵² Ibid. at 70.

¹⁵³ Humphrey cited in “Leadership in Law,” ibid. at 81–82.