'Generous' Crockers happy to wait for Hamilton's £400,000

"It seems that for years I've been single-handedly financing the profession," said Hamilton.
But money is not all that Hamilton has contributed to the legal profession, he told The Lawyer.
Hamilton is trained as a chancery and tax barrister. And although he never had a tenancy, he claims he has continued his legal career with regular pro bono work. "It is improbable I will return to the law - I am 52 after all - but I do advise people on a pro bono basis."
Hamilton wants to continue his pro bono work by helping those in the situation he and Christine found themselves before they were cleared of sexual assault last month.
"I'm getting involved with various organisations that lobby on behalf of the falsely accused," he said. He added that he would offer such organisations his legal services pro bono.
Hamilton acknowledges that his barrister's training helped him as a politician, although he also said: "My capacity for advocacy pre-dated my studies of the law."
In the years Hamilton has spent in court he has shown some strong views on the UK justice system. For example, he would rather high-profile litigation, such as his own, were televised as in the US.
"Personally, I'm in favour of cases being shown to the public. The trial with [Mohamed] Al Fayed should have been televised. The jury made some perverse decisions and the public at large should have witnessed this," Hamilton said.
Hamilton also said that he would much prefer trial by judge alone or a professional jury. "I have lost faith in juries. At least when the judge sums up he gives a reason. I think that trial by judge alone is best," he said. Hamilton added that juries are often "unsophisticated people dragged off the streets at random".
Hamilton argues that his legal pro bono contributions, among other good works he and his wife Christine have done, have gone largely unnoticed by the public. "We are accused of being greedy. No one knows how much time we have spent helping people."
One person Hamilton's sympathies do not seem to extend to is the late George Carman QC, who famously described him as "on the make and on the take", and "a man with no honour left".
Hamilton retaliated by telling The Guardian in 1999 that Carman's closing speech at the end of the Al Fayed trial was "so thin, he would make a fortune if he could bottle it as a slimming potion".
But despite this seeming animosity between the two high-profile figures, Hamilton admitted that he thought Carman was "a phenomenon". He added: "But I was pleased to note that he said I was one of his most difficult witnesses."

"I've never regarded high profile litigation as a recreation," Hamilton told The Lawyer. However, he has been involved in long-running libel battles since 1984, with varying degrees of success.
Hamilton's first libel battle was a winner. In 1984 he issued a writ against BBC documentary programme Panorama after it alleged that he had a link with right-wing extremists. Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners advised him. The battle went on until 1986, when the BBC awarded him damages of £40,000 after it admitted to the High Court that the allegations were false.
In 1994, the mammoth cash for questions scandal unfolded. In October 1994, The Guardian printed a story reporting that Hamilton had taken cash from Mohamed Al Fayed, through lobbyist Ian Greer, to ask questions in the House of Commons. Five days later, Hamilton and Greer issued a writ for libel.
It was at this point that Hamilton first instructed Crockers as Peter Carter-Ruck was conflicted out. It was a recommendation from Peter Carter-Ruck that led to Hamilton instructing Crockers. But in September 1996, the libel action against The Guardian was dropped.
On 16 January 1998, Channel 4 screened a programme named A Question of Sleaze which featured an interview with Al Fayed. Hamilton issued a libel writ against Channel 4, Al Fayed and Fulcrum Productions the very same day.
The libel trial began in November 1999 with Crockers advising Hamilton. Desmond Browne QC of 5 Raymond Buildings, who Hamilton says "has a brilliant grasp of technical legal questions", acted for him. Al Fayed instructed George Carman QC and was advised by DJ Freeman. Hamilton lost the case on 21 December 1999. Hamilton still owes Al Fayed £1.4m for DJ Freeman's costs.
On 29 August 2001, Harkavys partner Michael Coleman represented the Hamiltons in the High Court to start the current libel action. The couple issued a writ against Nadine Milroy-Sloan after allegations that they had sexually assaulted her were dropped. The case continues.