Lawyers: An easy target amid warfare

It seems not a day goes by without a family member, close friend, or distant acquaintance updating my Facebook
feed with messages of profound pride in our armed forces.

Undoubtedly, anyone willing to put their life on the line in defence of their country is entitled to respect. But what happens when soldiers do wrong? Should we demand their alleged crime or negligence be thoroughly investigated? Or do we write-off their supposed impropriety
as collateral or historical damage?

It is an argument that has raged for decades. The Allied firebombing of Dresden, the Mau-Mau uprising, the Bloody Sunday killings, and, most recently, the allegations of abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq have all seen British troops accused of wrongdoing.

It is not popular to sully the name of our troops. It is deemed shamefully unpatriotic by some. It is far wiser, therefore, to just scroll through one's feed without commenting, especially when allegations of abuse are made against our soldiers in far-flung corners of the world.

Lawyers, perhaps more than anyone else, know this to be true. The last fortnight has seen
a veritable barrage of invective from politicians and the press aimed at those who dare to bring claims against the Ministry of Defence.

Last week, Leigh Day found itself in the government's crosshairs. The firm was pilloried in parliament following the findings of the Al-Sweady inquiry and an announcement by the Solicitors Regulation Authority that the human rights outfit is to face the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).

Responding to a description of the firm as 'immoral, thieving, and ambulance-chasing' by the Conservative MP Stewart Jackson, the prime minister said Leigh Day had 'serious questions to answer'. That goes without saying: the SDT will decide if the firm has acted otherwise than in accordance with the regulator's rules. Yet it is hard to consider the painting of solicitors as 'hounding' veterans with 'spurious claims' was anything other than politically motivated.

The government was able to embarrass Labour's new shadow defence secretary,
barrister Emily Thornberry, for accepting a £14,500 donation from Leigh Day, while also furthering its argument for a British Bill of Rights, lest the 'human rights industry' bleed the army dry. Sticking the boot into a group of lawyers seen as a constant thorn in its side was probably just a bonus.

Leigh Day is not the only firm in the firing line, however. Investigations into wrongdoing in Iraq have 'multiplied ten-fold' since the creation of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, according to former minister Sir Nick Harvey. The once Liberal Democrat MP fell short of suggesting lawyers had initiated a witch-hunt against veterans but nevertheless criticised the ability of foreign nationals to obtain legal aid.

In addition, he argued that the Human Rights Act was tying the hands of soldiers on the battlefield, and that the Geneva Convention should be relied upon instead when dealing with accusations of mistreatment abroad. It is an argument that certainly resonates with large swathes of the public, but one that goes against the idea that human rights are for all.

How is Britain, which has long championed human rights across the globe, to maintain its position as a bastion of universal protections if it refuses to accept, or even investigate, allegations of abuse by its military under its own domestic legislation?

Firms that undertake such 'unpopular' work are unlikely to be cowed by the Conservatives' latest censure. Lawyers are well used to being ostracised by politicians and the public. I don't, therefore, expect we'll be seeing an 'I support our lawyers' Facebook campaign anytime soon. What a shame.

John van der Luit-Drummond is deputy editor for Solicitors Journal john.vanderluit@solicitorsjournal.co.uk | @JvdLD