Bad apple days

What an exciting summer it has been so far. We have all been gripped by the phone hacking scandal, and we have had resignations, recriminations, and even a good old bit of slapstick before the select committee. One wonders quite how someone was able to sit there quietly all afternoon with a custard pie made out of shaving foam without anyone noticing '“ perhaps because the pie flinger was not also wearing a red nose, pointy hat, large spotty trousers and comedy shoes, nobody thought it was suspicious.

Anyway, I digress. The tabloids are in the dock and everyone is wondering where it is all going to end. The strange world of backdoors to No 10 and who gets invited to whose sleepover/wedding/birthday party and Boxing Day lunch etc. are all very interesting too. Plainly there seems to be a lot of contact between politicians and the 'meeja', a lot of which we don't '“ or did not '“ know about. Rather like the third form turning on the school bully at last, everyone is lining up to get a good kick in. This one is going to run and run.

But amid all of the excitement of each new day's headlines, there are other rather consoling thoughts that have floated across my ken insofar as our own profession is concerned. Boy have we taken kickings over the years '“ fat cats with fees, alley cats with cross-examination, tom cats with love romp scandals '“ if we are not pejorative cats we are the dogs that scavenge the carcass of human misery, feeding jackal-like as we go, bloodied chops and all.

Clear boundaries

What we are not, and I do not think anyone has ever suggested we are, is a profession that has given the impression that perhaps the lines have become blurred between who we are and what we do, and others in the same world that play a different role. There is no crisis of confidence that we might be, or appear to be, too close to people society would prefer us to maintain a professional distance from. In crime, we as solicitors and barristers are close to real criminals, some of whom have done truly terrible things. It is an uncomfortable thought that we rely on their crimes to make a living. The temptation therefore to get unhealthily close in the privacy of the office, or chambers or a conference room at court, could be overwhelming. But we don't do it, and we know that if we did we would be 'bent', and the world would know, and we would lose in a second what has been achieved over a lifetime: that precious thing called reputation. So we don't do it, and, if there has been the odd bad apple over the decades, then they are known about and despised for it '“ they are not to be trusted.

In the same way there is no blurring of lines between the judiciary and the advocates. There are no cosy chats in rooms off the record. The professional distance is maintained daily, constantly, by deploying courtesy, respect and good manners. Everyone knows how to behave, and a judge does indeed act without fear or favour in all that she or he does in court and the decisions that are made. Judges are remote, say the critics; no they are not, but they are separate '“ which is a different thing and a good thing. We are separate from the CPS, and from the police, and from our clients, which means that justice is done and it is seen to be done.

A little respect

It is time that we, as a major public institution, should get the respect that other more tarnished institutions have forfeited over the way they have behaved, whether they are win-at-all-costs journalists or MPs over claiming on their expenses.

Which brings me to a particular person that deserves the public's respect: the lawyer instructed on behalf of the Norwegian mass killer. In the paper this week there was a report of an interview with him where he explained how he had thought long and hard over whether to accept the case; and he explained that he had to take the case, in effect had no choice, because that is what freedom, society and the law is about. He had an obligation because everybody is entitled to representation within and before the law '“ he had been sought and it was not for him to refuse. Fearless and non-judgmental representation '“ however unpalatable it may be at times '“ is part of the maintenance of an honest and fair society. Rosemary West, Myra Hindley, Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe '“ all needed to be represented by the best that there was. If we could refuse, we would be disrespecting the very thing that we claim to wish to uphold: the rule of law.

Nobody asks us to like our clients. Some clients make the mistake that perhaps we do, and if they cross the line and ask us to do something unethical we refuse and can and do, if necessary, withdraw. We do not need to worry about standing close to our clients (we can stand by them in the dock and indicate to them their pleas if necessary) because there is an impenetrable, invisible wall between us. In that the public can have confidence '“ there are no backdoors in our world.