What happened to the idea that everyone is entitled to representation?

Good move. Kimmitt plainly had no place in a law firm. Nor do those junior associates who think that it's appropriate to bring their politics to work. The relatively recent inclination to taint one's workplace with one's politics needs to be strangled at birth. The US firm Coinbase took a strong stand on this last year, informing employees that their politics were not welcome in the workplace, and that if they didn't like it they could take a redundancy package. 

Here was their statement to staff: https://blog.coinbase.com/coinbase-is-a-mission-focused-company-af882df8804

A week later, at the expiration of the deadline, 5% of staff had resigned and taken a redundancy package: https://blog.coinbase.com/a-follow-up-to-coinbase-as-a-mission-focused-company-6e7545e9aea2. Good riddance to them - the company will be stronger having cleansed them.

As David Maister wrote in Managing The Professional Service Firm back in 1993, law firms exist to (a) provide excellent service to clients; (b) generate profits to partners; and (c) develop associates' careers. That's it. Those who feel the need for self-indulgent wokery can do so in their own time at weekends - or, if that's not enough, they can find a touchy-feely, wishy-washy, namby-pamby, tree-hugging job working for a charity. 

Genuinely concerned by the seemingly willing societal drift towards a position whereby those accused of having done bad things are unable to obtain representation to defend themselves against those accusations.

It's all very odd, people hoot and cheer about upholding the Rule Of Law and about how legal safeguards are essential to preventing our societies from plunging into 'populist' tyranny, but then get outraged that people they don't like are presumed innocent until proven guilty the next. 

I said the same thing about the palaver over Jones Day acting for Trump last year, but that all got shouted down as 'alt-right' and 'apologism for Trumpist facism' or whatever. But here we are again in yet another scenario in which people seem to think that the Wrong Kind Of Person should be effectively barred from decent legal representation simply on the basis that the mob has decided they're a wrong'un. No trial required.

Also, to be clear, if he's a rapist then by all means lock him up somewhere ghastly after a fair trial. But the fair trial bit really is an essential part of getting there.

Junior lawyers at the firm (and to be honest I doubt many genuinely did) who object to this have no place in the legal profession.

Do you think we could crowdfund Jolyon Tallyho to act for him?

He's always very keen on justice and rights isn't he? Surely he'll be up for this one at his usual reasonable rates?

Why should law firms be different to other service providers?  I don't think anyone else discriminates like this. "I'm sorry sir, Dominos doesn't deliver to someone accused of an indictable only offence".  "Your BMW is ready for delivery, we are just waiting now for you to send us your criminal records check".

Several people have already made very sensible points of principle, about everyone being entitled to proper representation, that being an integral part of a fair society etc. 

But there is also a practical point, which is that if people accused of unpleasant crimes are denied competent representation, it is far more likely they will be convicted, but based not on their guilt, but on their inability to understand and participate in the process. 

If the accused in this piece is convicted after having received the best possible defence, then we can all rest a little bit easier. 

Woke-ists are ideologues.  Rationality is secondary for them.  Conviction by (social media) acclamation works for them.  Old-fashioned stuff, such as a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, is viewed with suspicion and distaste:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/05/inno-o05.html

When I worked in a City firm in the 1990s, I kept my centre-left politics well hidden.  Some of the more likable partners were relatively insane, keen on hanging people etc.  However, I found that one could maintain a perfectly adequate conversation for 15 minutes, by dint of saying "Really?" and "Quite.".  I bought the Independent and Guardian newspapers, and had the decency, and cop-on, to keep such offending items well hidden in my briefcase, as I knew well that the public display of such lily-livered accoutrements would create a perception that I lacked commercial nous.  

Those were the days, when fanatics knew their place.  Nowadays, a secular bible-basher like this somehow got to be in charge of a law firm.  Unreal. 

.  

I don't really understand why English and Australian solicitors are not bound by the cab rank rule when their colleagues at the bar are. But the cab rank rule is a good and important principle. It is essential to the proper administration of justice: R. v Ulcay [2008] 1 WLR 1209.

Whatever the precise contours or application of the cab rank rule, the idea that a lawyer should refuse to represent a client because he or she has been accused of a particular crime is ethically unacceptable. 

However, I do not know why Ms Kimmitt should have had to resign for sending this email. She is not a lawyer. She was making no decision. She was merely expressing opinions with which others, particularly non-lawyers, might reasonably agree. Could the partnership not have set out their position publicly - if necessary respectfully disagreeing with aspects of her email - explaining the ethical position - and left it at that?

What happened to the right to choose who to represent?
What happened to the right to run a woke paw firm? 

All those crying about the youth having some values - don’t worry, you’re in charge. For now. 

the snowflakery is strong today. 

the reality is that the cab rank role has always been a bit of a fig leaf if you ask any experienced criminal barrister. The only difference is that they or their clerks used to make up excuses for not accepting unsavoury briefs rather than declining on reputational grounds.

Then there is the costs angle. My firm turns away prospective clients all the time by making the point (politely) that our fees are likely to be too high for them or that we typically don't act for individuals due to the AML burden.  

As always this is a nuanced issue that nowadays typically angers the right who see it as binary

Are criminals entitled to legal representation? Yes. Have there been any recent cases of rapists and murderers etc who have been denied legal representation? I'm not aware of this.

The Trump thing is different. There is a strong argument that his attempt to legally overturn the results of a democratic election were an abuse of process. Unsure what the equivalent laws are in the US, but in the UK, solicitors and barristers are forbidden from engaging in abuse of process. Which over here includes presenting a hopeless case to the court, and I would be surprised if there wasn't something analogous in the US.

If a client came to me or a firm and asked them to present a hopeless defence or a hopeless claim - then I would be entitled to tell them politely to go away.

There's also something about bringing the legal profession into disrepute in the UK solicitors' conduct rules which could cover a spurious election claim instruction. 

Now this particular issue is one of national and political importance. Crucially, I think, it was a defamation i.e. a civil claim rather than a criminal claim. My understanding is that Australian label law is typically quite friendly to those suing for libel and as such has been used by many to silence journalists through cost threats. While entirely legal, there are understandably wider doubts about the reputational impact of this practice.

To ask employees to leave their politics at home entirely is a slippery slope.

If the firm, for instance, decided to take an instruction from the Chinese government in a claim of national political significance eg spying, expropriation of Australian resources etc, then I could well imagine there being similar opposition internally, and to just expect employees to suck it up is unrealistic. 

The fact is that the partners and junior lawyers in this instance are on different sides of the fence, and it looks like an office politics decision to find an excuse to get rid of the current managing partner.

also if what she had said was  true, that the instruction was taken without authority from the firm centrally which was a requirement, then that is also a disciplinary issue for the partner in question

But if the partner who accepted the instruction didn't need central authority or approval to accept the instruction, then the managing partner should go for making that incorrect allegation

"There is a strong argument that his attempt to legally overturn the results of a democratic election were an abuse of process. Unsure what the equivalent laws are in the US, but in the UK, solicitors and barristers are forbidden from engaging in abuse of process. Which over here includes presenting a hopeless case to the court"

Hang about, isn't the right place to establish whether a particular legal application is or isn't an abuse of process in a courtroom? Rather than on Twitter?

Y'know, you make an application for strike out, present evidence, and then get an impartial ruling from an independent tribunal to confirm you were right. Rather than just presuming that it's an abuse of process because you don't like the chap making it, and then de facto denying him access to the courts at all.

After all, I thought we all thought that it was a good thing that we could freely interrogate the integrity of electoral events - like referendums and stuff - in the courts to ensure that they were conducted properly and in accordance with the law? Jolyon and Miller spent millions doing it and we all said how marvellous it was that we could Hold Power To Account? Are you saying that we should have just labelled that an Abuse Of Process because it was aimed at overturning the result?

Also, is this dim view of the practice of presenting hopeless cases to the court a new thing? I thought that we were all in favour of it only a few months ago? So much so that we thought it was an abomination that the Home Secretary dared to frown upon the endemic nature of it in the Immigration Tribunals.

Suggesting that we should stop presenting hopeless cases was apparently a grave threat to all of our physical safety. What changed all of a sudden?

Largely agree with you Mountain 12, but the point does fail somewhat with law firms falling over themselves to declare themselves champions of racial equality, gender rights, LGBT issues and every other strand of wokery. It works in both directions: firms shouldn't seek to position themselves in this way if they are then going to tell employees to 'keep politics out of the office' or similar.

C'mon Heffers. She had to go because she sent an email without consultation, completely at odds with the partnership's opinions and more importantly outright lied and said that the defamation partner who accepted the case had done so without proper authority and that the client would have been rejected if the partner had gone through proper approval channels. No wonder the partners were up in arms. 

1.

'Largely agree with you Mountain 12, but the point does fail somewhat with law firms falling over themselves to declare themselves champions of racial equality, gender rights, LGBT issues and every other strand of wokery.'

I sincerely hope that you are not in a senior management role...

To be clear, championing equality is important - it is not another 'strand of wokery'. Describing D&I initiatives in this way is crass and offensive. Further, many studies have shown that D&I work contributes to the bottom line as well as having an undeniable moral aspect.

I suggest that you get your facts straight before making broad-brush statements, which disparage a perfectly legitimate practice. 

2.

'It works in both directions: firms shouldn't seek to position themselves in this way if they are then going to tell employees to 'keep politics out of the office' or similar.'

You are conflating legitimate D&I practices with opinions as to whether or not an individual is entitled to legal representation. This is ridiculous logic. 

Now returning to the main point, I agree that this man be entitled to legal representation without judgment from the junior members of this Aussie outfit. Let the courts decide. This is not a particularly nuanced issue. 

Also, she was a woman, so that probably had a bearing on it too.

Structural, innit?

"more importantly [she] outright lied and said that the defamation partner who accepted the case had done so without proper authority and that the client would have been rejected if the partner had gone through proper approval channels"

These allegations are not apparent in the RoF story above. If they are true (which I do not know) then they would put things in a different light. 

@Wow

Isn't the problem when 'championing equality' becomes so important it starts to supplant that other objective of law firms, you know, err ... someone help me out here ...  oh yeah I've got it, 'providing legal services'.

Which looks a bit like what seems to have happened here.

Would a 'champion of equality' want to represent someone accused of an offence against a black person, for example? Their 'people' might not be 'living their values' if they did something like that.  The hand-wringing would be intolerable.

Many of you are missing the point. The Partner here did not bother running a conflict check, which would have gone to OGC considering the reputational risk to the firm, he plainly should have known better. That being said, the CEO should not have sent a firmwide email essentially throwing him under the bus, completely unprofessional. The firm have come out of this looking like they are amateurs. 

It’s surely far-fetched to suggest - as the article does - that an entire new generation of lawyers has no respect for the principles of entitlement to representation or presumption of innocence.

I am sure the idea that a law firm should decline to represent anyone accused of a serious offence is very much a minority view even among its younger staffers.

JM I’d be interested in how you feel able confidently to declare things like “the Partner here did not bother running a conflict check”. Are you one of the people who’ve been posting on the discussion board about the current murder case in London, confidently sounding off about details of the case as if any of the facts were known?

Incidentally, to pick up on another point made above, AML checking is no more burdensome in the case of an individual client than a company. The reason many large law firms don’t like working for individuals is that they are less reliable payors, harder to pursue fees against, less likely to be significant ongoing sources of business and, frankly, are often ornery, capricious and tiresome as clients.

The last settlement I attended at Minters I noticed there was a rainbow flag on the reception desk (but no Australian flag of course).

Minters have been guilty of riding the wave of hip wokeness for decades. No wonder they ended up with a CEO making such ill considered comments. 

 more importantly outright lied and said that the defamation partner who accepted the case had done so without proper authority and that the client would have been rejected if the partner had gone through proper approval channels. No wonder the partners were up in arms. 

This is completely false. He didn't bother submitting a check and has admitted as much in an email to the other partners that has been leaked to the media here in Australia. A partner can't just unilaterally decide to act for someone and not bother telling the firm. 

Do you have a problem with them acting for him JM?

Absolutely not, as long as the Partner had it signed off. I know that every time we want to act for an individual at our firm, it has to go to OGC for approval. 

Whenever someone is apologizing for the "hurt" they have caused in a corporate setting you know the wokesters have been stirring the pot.