The Lawyer’s new China Elite report contains the most detailed research available on the PRC legal market and contains unparalleled insight into the country's leading law firms. They vary in size, practice focus and geographic coverage, but they all share one common quality – ambition... Read more
This year, The Lawyer’s annual ranking of the largest UK law firms by turnover is available as an interactive, digital benchmarking tool. For the first time this will allow you to manipulate each data set against the metrics of your choice.
I was concerned to see, in the front-page news story Bingham questions public defender concept (The Lawyer, 14 October), that the Lord Chief Justice is quoted as saying, I would personally find it harder to motivate myself if I was paid a salary.
If that remark was correctly attributed to him, he would in my eyes be seen to confirm the reputation of lawyers as rapacious. Further, his remark does no justice to the many salaried lawyers, both in industry as I am, and in private practice, including, I understand, some barristers.
It also crosses my mind that Lord Bingham himself is salaried in his current position. Does this mean that one should question his motivation?
Lawyers are not alone in seeking to carry out their duties and responsibilities to the best of their ability, and continually seeking to improve their knowledge without inherent financial rewards. Other professions do it; why should we be any different?
The Lord Chief Justice might, on reflection, make it clear that he respects the professional integrity of other lawyers to carry out their duties and responsibilities to the best of their ability and with full motivation, despite the fact that they only receive salaries.