header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
05 November 2021 / Theo Huckle KC
Issue: 7955 / Categories: Opinion , Profession
printer mail-detail

Here to act, not to judge

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
62971
In the first of a special two-part series, Theo Huckle QC explains how the talking-down of lawyers over many years shows a serious lack of leadership in public debate

I recently read a piece in a very well-known political/current affairs journal in which the commentator seemed to me to be implying that our lawyer colleagues should exercise more moral (moralising?) judgement about the cases they are prepared to take on, and they don’t do it enough, but that, nevertheless, ‘better the Devil you know’ with lawyers as we have them (Prospect, ‘Should a lawyer ever refuse to act in an unpleasant case?’, David Allen Green, April 2021). The piece left me with a deep sense of unease, and I thought it reflected the present parlous state of thought leadership about our justice system and the way that lawyers work within it and should do. How opinion-formers such as the readers of the journal in question view the legal system and professions matters to what happens

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll