header-logo header-logo

20 February 2026 / Ian McDougall
Issue: 8150 / Categories: Features , Profession , Rule of law , Equality
printer mail-detail

Without fear or favour?

242971

Ian McDougall on the dangers of blurred lines between counsel & cause

  • Conflating lawyers with the clients or causes they represent poses a serious threat to the rule of law.
  • Lawyers must maintain clear boundaries between professional advocacy and personal activism, and society must also respect their independence.

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged. The conflation of lawyers with the causes or clients they represent represents a clear and present danger to the legal profession and to the ability of people to get representation. From human rights defenders to corporate attorneys, legal professionals increasingly find themselves judged not by the quality of their advocacy or the integrity of their practice, but by the perceived morality of their clients. This troubling development is very confusing. I ‘grew up’ in a legal world where it was a source of professional pride to represent someone whose cause you did not agree with or whose morality you found objectionable. It was, traditionally, the highest form of a lawyer’s contribution to society,

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

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
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll