Who does a lawyer truly serve?

Is a lawyer there for society, for the client, or for both? And if it is both, how can they be taught to make decisions which are ‘right’ both for today and for tomorrow? 

I read the peer reviewers that I work with in legal aid, noting how important it is to provide clients with ‘tailored’ legal advice, coordinated against the client’s instructions and wishes–and delivered in accordance with them, so far as duties to the court and the SRA permit. And then I read reports of in-house lawyers and commercial private practice lawyers working “too hard” for their clients, but forgetting their duties to the other side, the court, SRA and society. 

How then, can we educate a next generation, facing an uncertain future of new and more regulation, what it means to be a lawyer? 

For instance, the Post Office fiasco is clearly not just the fault of the lawyers. But they had the opportunity to stop it, to behave with at least one eye on the other side and on society. They could have been brave, stood up to their bosses, and refused to prosecute when they knew something was wrong. 

But, outside of these more obvious extremes, what should a lawyer do? If acting in society’s best interests means refusing to represent those whom society disapproves of, then few people would have access to lawyer-assisted justice. Does an accused charged with marital abuse, sexual abuse, rape or murder deserve a lawyer? I was always taught that it was up to the jury or judge to decide guilt, not the lawyer. 

Or perhaps there is a different set of societal rules for criminal defence? Is a serial abuser of the environment being sued (or prosecuted) for polluting our water systems and possibly causing physical damage to crops and people, in a different “social” position. Would lawyers involved be faced with similar issues. What is good for society? Are any lawyers taught to make these sorts of judgements and how do we know whether the judgements they make are right or wrong? 

Perhaps everyone deserves legal representation, which should include robust warnings of what ‘society’ may think, but still get both advice and good work. Perhaps in-house lawyers and lawyers in large commercial practices do need education and training in dealing with over- powerful clients and employers? Are lawyers for the government by their nature deemed to be understanding of what is best for society’s interests? There are Conduct Rules and there is also Guidance and examples. 

Paragraph 3.1 of the SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs says: “you are subject to the overriding obligation to protect your client's best interests.” 

According to the SRA Principles, “You act: in a way that upholds the constitutional principle of the rule of law, and the proper administration of justice; in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors' profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons; with independence; with honesty; with integrity; in a way that encourages equality, diversity and inclusion; in the best interests of each client. SRA’s Maintaining Trust and Acting Fairly is a bit more helpful. 

Paragraph 1.2 says you should “not abuse your position by taking unfair advantage of … others. And 1.4 “not mislead or attempt to mislead … others, either by your own acts or omissions or allowing or being complicit in the acts or omissions of others (including your client).” 

We seem to struggle with how best to teach and train solicitors in understanding their duties, especially as the world around them drifts away from a clear focus on the rule of law—or shifts toward a more fluid, values-driven interpretation of what parts of society currently expect. 

More real-life examples in training would be valuable—but clearer agreement on what is right according to the rules would be even better.