“People in this country,” pronounced Michael Gove this year, “have had enough of experts.” And therein lay the leitmotif of 2016, a year in which we learned to embrace the unexpected and the irrational. Both were contained in the quote by Gove, a man who ran the UK education and justice departments for years, and who might therefore have been expected to prize knowledge and its uses. His politically expedient decision to attack experts should serve as a warning to lawyers and firms.
2016 has brought astonishing economic and advisory challenges to in-house and private practice lawyers, all of which The Lawyer has covered in detail. But there’s a wider issue, particularly for private practice. Most law firms work hard at being excellent employers and creating meaningful CSR programmes, but they miss the point about the way they connect with the world outside an upper-middle-class bubble.
Law firms have effectively separated themselves from any discussion of the rule of law and justice, unless it’s to talk about London being a global centre for disputes. Firms have bought into the logic of globalisation and commoditisation that has partly created this anti-elite pushback. So what practical steps can rich law firm ‘haves’ take to help the ‘have-nots’ get access to justice? Why is access to justice not a core business value?
If you accept that populism is a danger, self-interest alone should dictate that lawyers respond. Populism will attack the very globalised business from which commercial law has made millions. Populism will also attack the pesky rules under which companies and countries trade.
At a febrile time when the tabloids are calling judges enemies of the people, not one City lawyer has spoken out in defence of the bench. The bar was furious, and it was vocal. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has asked the Lord Chancellor Liz Truss to deliver a public lecture on the rule of law. From the City firms there was an unedifying silence. In fact, I’d take it further – the silence was an absolute disgrace.
The sublime experience of watching David Pannick QC in conversation with Supreme Court judges in the most important constitutional case of the century was, in contrast, inspiring. How unusual it was to see a debate on screen that was not about cheap applause: reason, expertise and the principles of law were all on show, and are all worth defending. The answer to the dangers of populism is not, then, to sit tight and hope the convulsions of 2016 fade. If the commercial legal profession cares about the rule of law as much as it says it does, it must come up with a collective, nuanced and, above all, vocal response.
Here is the Bingham Centre’s response to the recent attacks on the judiciary
http://binghamcentre.biicl.org/newsitem/6226
The Bingham Centre works around the world to monitor and protect the rule of law. We need the support of the legal profession to continue our work.
Maybe lawyers think they are a law unto themselves rather than a servant of the “people”. Is “populism” just about dangers? Although Pannick was quick to reassure the court that the Brexit case wasn’t about politics, I wasn’t reassured.
Perfect article, and if any professional can argue it’s worth, the lawyer will surely excel in doing so!
“At a febrile time when the tabloids are calling judges enemies of the people, ..” could be the key to the silence. Liz Truss indeed has a duty to say something….If May will give her permission.
If I may say so, it is not quite right to say that no City lawyer spoke up about Liz Truss’s failure to defend the judiciary. My letter in The Times on 9 November read as follows:
Sir,
When she was appointed lord chancellor, doubts were expressed about the ability and willingness of Liz Truss to defend the Judiciary and the rule of law against a power-hungry executive. As the third career politician appointed to the office since 2012, it was argued that she was unlikely to stand up in Cabinet against the interests of her political colleagues. These doubts were dismissed as being motivated by sexism at the time. However, they have been borne out by Ms. Truss’s failure to throw the weight of her office behind the Judges over the past few days. Perhaps we can therefore have a proper debate about the wisdom of appointing a non-lawyer who is beholden to the executive to this constitutionally pivotal office. Between 1673 and 2012, all lord chancellors were senior lawyers. Since the appointment of Chris Grayling in 2012, however, the justice system has been under the cosh.
It is time for a serious debate on the constitutional significance of the office of lord chancellor and the qualifications of those who hold it. Although safeguards were built into the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act, which permitted non-lawyer politicians to be appointed, they do not appear to be working.
Perfect means cannot be improved upon: hard to justify (and with redundant apostrophe).
How out of touch are the lawyers who do nothing more than set their sights on the corporate prize. What is the corporate prize? How to dodge taxes perhaps, or how to dodge legal systems elsewhere. Who most ably does this job well according to lawyers mainly living in London, well they do if we are to believe their own publicity. So who is available to curtail corporate sleight of hand, we hardly think the same lawyers are best suited to do that job do you. And there you have the crux of the problem with lawyers particularly in London, they are the product of their own business success, and bear a tarnished reputation because of it. Indeed it is high time for an independent mind more in touch with the voting public to deal with matters appropriately. Democracy works well, its detractors merely utilise the word populist to explain away the distaste felt for those seeking elitist status regardless of merit. History tells us that anyone who places themselves above democracy fails and fails badly.
Good stuff Ted. We’re not quite City but only by 20 metres and we pride ourselves on ensuring access to justice for people in group litigation, such as Hillsborough and historic child abuse, consumers subject to fraud and otherwise. Unfortunately the Jackson reforms have put more and more strain on our ability to do so.
We also act for Santos, the Miller co-claimant and have received a bucket load of abuse and threatened injunctions and we and our client are entitled to expect the LC and all Government spokespersons and lawyers generally to scream out about access and the rule of law highlighted in the case. From many there has been a painful silence.
and yes Cat it was a pleasure to hear Pannick; “you say de Keyser and I say de geezer”
Amazing.
Enshrined in a lawyer’s code of conduct is their duty to court NOT a win for their client. Yet time & time again we find judges who are exposed to “mind games” & abuse of process, categorically shy away from enforcing the full force of the law. The way most lawyers play the system proves the adversarial system is antiquated.
No doubt those who are capitalising on court weaknesses will be the first to object to a tried & tested effective inquisitorial model; nett effect – an end to shysters manipulating the hard work that goes into law reform.