Should lawyers be sworn in? Jennifer James has her doubts
The Insider is intrigued to read reports in the legal press, suggesting that a new Oath for Solicitors may be introduced; something along the lines of the Hippocratic Oath that newly-admitted doctors swear has been suggested. This might sound wonderful, but I have doubts on several counts.
PC madness
An oath for lawyers may well founder upon the shoals of political correctness before it has even reached the open sea. This column has previously noted the Law Society’s penchant for listing every religious festival and notable birthday in its diary but eschewing dates such as Easter, Christmas and St George’s day on the completely bonkers theory that it might “offend” those of other faiths and no faith at all (losing sight of the fact that it offends the pants off people who want to remember St George, and find it difficult to get any justice administered sans culottes).
I can foresee any attempt to bring in an Oath strangling itself on the simple question of who (or what) one should swear it to—should one swear it to a Supreme Being or to the president of the Law Society (and do they recognise the difference?)
Maybe a gilded calf could be set up in the Reading Room and we could all swear to Baal. No doubt the proffered solution might be to give a solemn affirmation, which is fine as far as it goes but of course the especially devout will tell you that nothing short of swearing on their holy book will actually bind them, morally if not legally.
As to the wording, that too is apt to be highly contentious. What are we meant to swear to? Upholding the law, preserving liberty, pursuing justice, yadda, yadda. Talk to any small firm or sole practitioner and they will tell you that they would prefer the pursuit of justice to come from the head down, and how about we start with whoever sets their insurance premiums?
Hunt the loophole
Given that lawyers are, by definition, perpetually engaged in the ages-old pastime of “hunt the loophole,” to be effective, such an Oath would have to be boiler plated out the wazzoo; otherwise the boffins at Clifford Overy and their ilk will be poring over it with a Zeiss 1,000x magnifying lens, looking for ways out.
One can’t help thinking that if Faust had engaged a Magic Circle firm, his deal with Satan would have been a lot easier to renegotiate.
It therefore seems likely that the Oath, if it comes about, will be seen as more symbolic than legally binding, a toothless creature along the lines of Wilfrid Brambell. In that case, will it be compulsory, and what sanctions will attach to breaches of the Oath? Will the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors start sitting in the guise of a Consistory Court, and will lawyers who breach the Oath (rather than the Code of Conduct) be unfrocked rather than struck off?
