header-logo header-logo

Legal bodies decry dangerous climate for lawyers

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

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Bloomsbury Square Employment Law—Donna Clancy

Employment law team strengthened with partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

mfg Solicitors—Matt Smith

Corporate solicitor joins as partner in Birmingham

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Freeths—Joe Lythgoe

Corporate director with expertise in creative industries joins mergers and acquisitions team

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll