I see “Activist Lawyer” is being bandied around again. I dislike the use of labels in this way because it is usually a tool to encourage prejudice & assumption rather than logic & analysis. It is used by regimes time after time to encourage & justify hate and victimisation.

I want to examine, for a moment, what lawyers actually do. For me, it is a noble & honourable vocation, where integrity is a cornerstone of our work. Bad eggs exist but they are usually found out and treated strictly. My starting point is that every society has rules.

The complexity of life and the imperfection of people often means that those rules are drafted in a way which does not meet every situation. The rules have to be interpreted and applied. Someone, ultimately, has to decide what those rules mean. This has to be done objectively

Fairly and without any form of political agenda - Nazi Germany is an example of what happens otherwise. For that you need a body of people who will make those decisions -judges. They have to do the bast they can without being influenced by politics, money or external pressures.

Those rules are complex and, moreover, only totalitarian or fascist regimes deny people a right to argue their case. Most people don’t understand the rules and/or aren’t good at speaking/arguing. They need a body of people who will explain the rules and help them have their say

Lawyers and advocates undertake that job. Owing to the complexity of the law, it becomes impossible to study and understand all areas of law and so lawyers specialise. They will become known for that specialism and attract more work. It is vital to a fair system that they

Don’t pick and choose their cases. If someone needs their help in their area of work they should accept it. They have to earn a living though and so they, like all other service industries, charge fees. In some areas those fees are high (eg commercial) because people will pay

For their services, in other areas they are less well paid and attract people who are interested in the subject matter and often the relationship between the individual and the state or very powerful bodies. Those areas of law often involve fast moving episodes which need

Swift action - passive waiting around can be fatal to the claim (thing, for example of children at risk of abuse). Protecting your client’s interests in those cases requires “activism”. It also requires judges to apply the rules if there is a dispute about their meaning.

If lawyers start pre-judging who should and should not be allowed to seek a judge’s ruling, then we are creating trial by lawyer, not by judge. Every client deserves representation by lawyers who will defend their interests fearlessly and the state spends millions employing and

Instructing lawyers to do the same for them. A lawyer who does not take a proper point because they don’t like the case or client lacks integrity. A society that does not recognise that will learn the folly of that too late to do anything about it. I would rather some cases

Which annoy people like Priti Patel than risk the extremist mayhem which people of her ilk flirt with and risk at the alter of vote winning. There!! Said it!!