Lord Pannick KC If I defended the people I loved, I would be unemployed.

By Krishan Sharma

If I defended the people I loved, I would be unemployed. Lord Pannick KC delivers this remark during our interview for the bar and the company. It is a striking statement, which summarizes the ethical dilemmas inherent in a lawyer's role and that it will pass the rest of the justifying interview. After having spent decades navigating in the complexities of advocacy at the highest level, Lord Pannick was faced with a public examination for the customers he represents. However, in our discussion, it is unshakable in its justification: a duty of lawyers is to represent their client to the best of their capacities, regardless of personal opinions or public opinion.

You don't expect a surgeon to refuse to operate a patient because he doesn't like them, he explains. The same goes for lawyers.

It is a principle to which he returns several times throughout our conversation. In a legal system built on the right to representation, lawyers must act as defenders, not arbitrators of morality. Their role is not to make a judgment but to ensure that the legal process works as it should be.

Lord Pannick is no stranger to controversy. During a career extending over more than four decades, the junior lawyer to take silk, and now as an in-office member of the Lord Chamber, he was at the forefront of some of the high-level legal battles in the United Kingdom. Its clientele has gone from primary ministers to world institutions, appearing in front of the Supreme Court and in the rear chambers of parliamentary committees. His work has contributed to shaping constitutional law through historical affairs, cementing his reputation for one of the most legal countries.

Having represented personalities such as Boris Johnson, Gina Miller and the Manchester City FC, he often found the target of public criticism. When he defended Boris Johnson in front of the Committee of Privileges of the House of Commons on the allegations of deceptive Parliament, he told me that his reception box had been flooded with messages questioning his integrity. Curious to know how you sleep at night, read an email. Another simply called him a sad and sad man.

However, it remains imperturbable. He recognizes that people often confuse the law with politics and understand the role of lawyers. My job is to assert the case, not to express my personal opinions, he said firmly. He notes that his position in the House of Lords allows him to express his point of view on legal and constitutional issues, but in the courtroom, his role is distinct. Advocacy is a question of process, no personal belief.

When I asked if he had already refused a case for reasons of controversy, he shook his head. It would go against the very nature of what we do, he explains. If lawyers were starting to choose and choose cases based on public opinion, this would undermine all the foundations of the judicial system. In fact, he says, refusing a case is in itself a political act. Once you start to choose who represent, you choose a side. It is this principle that forms the basis of its justification to represent controversial customers.

The perception of the public advocacy, he admits, has become more and more hostile. I was convicted of having represented Gina Miller, he recalls. Some thought I would interfere in politics. Others criticized my involvement in the Shamima Begum case. But these reactions are nothing new.

He highlights historical examples to illustrate his point. Quintilian accused defenders of tearing him off from punishment criminals. John Stuart Mill said that putting a wig and a dress gave a man of truth and justice. Suspicion towards lawyers has always existed.

But, he argues, advocacy is fundamental for a fair legal system. It is the judge and the jury who decide guilt or innocence, not the lawyer. Our work is to ensure that each argument is proposed correctly. He refers to the rumple fictitious lawyer of Bailey, who, when he criticized for defending a murderer, replied: I defend the murderers; This does not mean that I defend the murder. The distinction, insists Lord Pannick, is crucial.

However, he concedes that this principle depends on the integrity of the legal system itself. In regimes like Nazi Germany or apartheid in South Africa, the courts were oppression tools. In such cases, the ethics of representation is fundamentally different. A fair legal system, he underlines, must be built on impartiality and equity.

A central pillar of the role of lawyers is the classification rule of the cabin. This professional obligation obliges lawyers to take charge of cases on the principle of first arrival, first served, regardless of personal opinion.

Michael Leavery said it once, recalls Lord Pannick. When asked why he pleaded a case that contradicts his position from the day before, he replied: My Lord, I am simply a taxi for the rental. Which captures it perfectly.

However, he recognizes that this principle is not always understood by the broader public. The growing indication of lawyers, in particular those who defend unpopular customers, have led to animated debates on the ethical responsibilities of lawyers. There is a real misunderstanding of what we do, he says. We do not approve of our customers. We make sure that justice is done. It is, he argues, a message that must be shared more widely to dispel false ideas on the profession.

Lord Pannick wishes to emphasize that without legal representation, the judicial system would collapse. If we say that some people do not deserve the representation, where to trace the line? he asks. It is a dangerous precedent.

While the conversation goes to the qualities of an effective defender, he is unequivocal: the preparation is everything. He explains that a lawyer must know the case better than anyone in the room. A lawyer who is not prepared is a lawyer who will lose.

Beyond the preparation, he underlines the importance of persuasion and composure. A courtroom is a high voltage place. The ability to stay calm under pressure is essential. You are watched by the judge, by the jury, by your opponent. Each word counts.

By reflecting on his own career, he recognizes the role that hard work and the opportunity have played. Luck is always a factor, he admits. But luck only helps those who put themselves in the right position to take advantage of it.

For budding lawyers, it offers a final advice. Visible appointment ”. He advises future lawyers to seize all occasions to develop their skills, and remember that the most important quality in a defender is resilience. You will be faced with setbacks, criticism and difficult cases. But if you are engaged in the principles of justice, you will find the work incredibly enriching.

While the interview fits at its end, it reiterates a point which it raised throughout: the plea does not consist in agreeing with your client; It is a question of ensuring that their voice is heard and that their case receives the regular procedure that it deserves.

At a time when public opinion often blurs the border between the lawyer and the client, Lord Pannicks firm commitment to the principles of justice is a powerful reminder of the role that lawyers play in maintaining the rule of law. His words are both a defense of the profession and a call to those who seek to understand it: justice must be available for everyone, no matter how unpopular the case is.

Image: Lord Pannick