Brexit campaigns: A messy fight of mudslinging

Especially concerning was the relish with which the Michael Gove and Priti Patel assumed their positions fronting the Vote Leave campaign, writes Kevin Poulter

With over three months still to go, the frenzy around the EU referendum shows no signs of abating. A couple of weeks ago I spoke about the responsibility we have as solicitors and trusted advisers to our clients to correct mistakes, clarify misinformation, and advise cautiously. I was careful to stop short of suggesting that we remain of independent thought and deed on the matter, but in our professional capacities and regardless of personal opinion, our priority should be our clients.

I was surprised at the time, as I am now, that ministers have been so quick to voice their personal opinions and to campaign one way or the other, before any real assessment could be made about the effect on the departments they represent. Especially concerning was the relish with which the Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove, and Employment Minister Priti Patel assumed their positions alongside other cabinet ministers fronting the Vote Leave campaign. Although we will ultimately be forced into a yes or no decision, the arguments aren't quite so clear cut.

It has already been widely reported that some organisations have set out their commercial position on Brexit, even if the royal household isn't one of them. Business leaders have been adding their names to the bottom of open letters, while other companies are taking more direct action. Rolls-Royce owner BMW has highlighted to UK workers the 'significant benefit' the German parent derives from trade and the free movement of workers within the EU. The mayor of London was forced to acknowledge a 'cock-up' in demanding senior staff at the Greater London Authority dance to Boris's pro-exit song.

Some representative bodies have found it difficult to measure the support of their members one way or the other. The British Chambers of Commerce adopted a position of neutrality, which meant the views of the director general, John Longworth, were inappropriate, leading first to his suspension and then resignation last week.

In our own profession, there is no consensus on what is the best way to vote on 23 June. According to research commissioned by the Law Society, between £225m and £1.7bn of legal work would be lost if Britain was to leave the EU. Admittedly, there's significant room for error between those figures and some areas of the profession will be affected more than others, but there is at least a loose statistic to consider.

Seemingly unconcerned by the views of their employers and clients, outspoken members of campaigning group Lawyers for Britain - who believe a no vote will mean an opportunity to revisit our legal relationship with Europe - have been sharing their views far and wide. Made up of retired judges and legal academics as well as practising barristers and solicitors, I understand that some members' views have already caused distress for the City firms in which they work, prompting the usual disclaimer that personal opinions are not necessarily those of the firm you represent.

With the referendum shaping up to be a messy fight of mudslinging and scaremongering, how far companies and organisations will go to influence their voting employees may be a question we ask more than once. A timely reminder to keep your own counsel through this heated debate may not be welcome, but it may be sensible.

Kevin Poulter, editor at large