header-logo header-logo

15 October 2025
Issue: 8135 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , International
printer mail-detail

Legal bodies decry dangerous climate for lawyers

The Bars, Faculty of Advocates and law societies of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have come together to accuse politicians of putting lawyers at risk through their use of ‘irresponsible and dangerous’ language

In a joint statement issued this week, six professional bodies which collectively represent 250,000 lawyers expressed grave concern about a climate of increasing hostility to lawyers and judges. They warned that ‘legal professionals have been vilified and targeted simply for doing their job… lawyers represent their clients without fear or favour.

‘Politicians have a responsibility to respect the role of judges in upholding the rule of law and interpreting legislation that has been agreed by parliament. Unlike politicians, members of the judiciary are expected to be strictly impartial when considering how the law should be applied. Lawyers must abide by their professional ethics code and ensure that people facing life changing legal problems get a fair hearing.

‘Politically motivated attacks on the legal profession… weaken public trust and confidence in the rule of law and erode the very foundations of justice that underpin fairness and democracy,’ the statement reads.

‘Barristers, solicitors and judges have been subjected to violence, death threats and rape threats. Some have faced threats to their family members. We have repeatedly seen law firms and offices be set upon by protestors. We are deeply disturbed by this rising tide of intimidation targeting those who serve our justice system and uphold democratic principles.’

The statement doesn’t name individuals but takes aim at the tendency of some politicians to identify lawyers with their clients’ causes—a practice that has been used by several politicians. At Conservative Party conference this month, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, holding a judge’s wig as a prop, decried judges ‘who’ve spent their careers fighting to keep illegal immigrants in this country’.

In February, the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr expressed concern after both Prime Minister Keir Starmer and leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch said they disagreed with a judge’s immigration ruling. In the US, meanwhile, President Trump’s administration targeted law firms which worked for his opponents with executive orders and clearance restrictions, later striking a deal to rescind these in return for pro bono work.

Issue: 8135 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , International
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll