Legally blogged

Put together a room full of legal bloggers, a goodly supply of wine, and some current legal issues to discuss, and the only thing missing will be enough time to do it all justice.


That's what we found when representatives of the ICLR joined some of the top names in legal blogging at the Law Society last week for the second #lawblogs event. The event was organised by 1 Crown Office Row, who produce the UK Human Rights Blog, and compered by Catrin Griffiths of The Lawyer. Among the distinguished "blawgers" on the panel were Joshua Rozenberg (presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action), Siobhan Butterworth of the Guardian, Adam Wagner of 1 COR, Carl Gardner (who writes the Head of Legal blog) and David Allen Green (who writes as Jack of Kent).


One of the subjects of discussion was the role of legal blogging and tweeting in helping to increase public understanding of legal issues. This is, of course, a core function of law reporting. The point about law reports is that they are written by lawyers, and in a technical way that enables important new developments in the law to be understood and applied by other lawyers. But they are not always very good at increasing public understanding of the law. While this may not be a good reason for changing the way law reports are written, it certainly suggests there might be some scope for law reporters to use the more informal medium of blogging to explain cases of public interest in a way the public can understand.


As Siobhan Butterworth pointed out, blogging, even mainstream blogging hosted by a newspaper, and subbed and edited as part of its official content, is only part of the conversation. Nevertheless, as Joshua Rozenberg added, such online discussion plays an important role at a time when detailed legal coverage in the print media is being downgraded. (It is certainly noticeable how much less space The Times devotes to its law reports than it used to, yet The Times should perhaps be congratulated for continuing to run them at all, as it has done ever since the days it was called the Universal Daily Register; whereas The Independent, The Guardian, the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph, all of which once ran proper law reports, written by barristers or solicitors and therefore citable in court, no longer do so.)


If that process of downgrading is to continue then, as Carl Gardner suggested, writing online maybe what all serious journalism will become. Carl also thought that Twitter would change the way bloggers write, encouraging the “micro-blog” form. Joshua thought tweeting had a role in breaking news but felt serious comment needed more time and the space which, of course, the internet (unlike print media) allows.


David Allen Green confessed that he had become a legal blogger by accident, through following the Simon Singh libel case and wanting to comment on and explain the legal issues as they were happening. He was fascinated by the question of “how has this ended up in court?” Did he have to listen to journalists or could he look at the material himself? If he could, then perhaps he could place that material in the public domain so that, instead of being told what to think, people could decide for themselves what they thought about the case.


All these points of view are what might be termed external, in relation the coverage of legal proceedings. But what role should blogging play for a barrister or solicitor engaged in a current case? Adam Wagner drew attention to the difference in the professional rules applicable to barristers, who must not express a personal opinion on facts or issues arising in a case in which they are instructed (see para 709.1 of the Bar Code of Conduct) whereas a solicitor may do so if, in the exercise of their judgment, it seems appropriate (guidance to rule 11 of the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct). Adam thought that barristers should have the same freedom of discretion as solicitors (though it could be argued, of course, that solicitors should be under the same constraints as barristers). That said, he thought most legal blogging and tweeting would not be about a lawyer’s current cases, but rather about general points of law, and would be aimed at clearing up misunderstandings caused by misreporting elsewhere.


And so the discussion continued. Among the audience were many other distinguished or widely read blawgers, including human avatars of "Copyrightgirl", "Millymoo" (who writes her blog beneath the wig) and "Legalbrat" who writes for the FT. Sadly absent was any human or virtual representative of Charon QC, who had been billed to appear, but whose presiding spirit seemed to smile down on the occasion like a departed Cheshire cat. Or not.


It occurred to me, as all the distinguished blogerati commented in turn on each issue raised, that there is an affinity between blogging and the common law. Just as the common law develops on a case by case basis, so the discussion of legal issues is advanced on a blog by blog basis. It may even develop on a tweet by tweet basis, though it seems that any communication limited to 140 characters must be in need of expansion (by way of a link to something more substantial) if it is to increase public understanding to any measurable degree.


Law reporting is critical both to the development of the common law and also to that public scrutiny of the administration of justice on which its democratic accountability depends. But the latter role is also well served by court reporting of all kinds, by responsible journalism in all media. The fact that the media may have changed should not alter the responsibilities of those providing the coverage. As Carl Gardner pointed out, it’s not just about teenagers in pyjamas showing off any more.

The Red Bag of Courage

If you’ve been following the BabyBarista blog you’ll know that the hero is an ambitious young barrister who aims to succeed at any price, and that his sworn enemy is a fellow barrister known as TopFirst.

And if you’ve read the first novel in the series, Law and Disorder (aka BabyBarista and the Art of War) you’ll recall how, when he and TopFirst were both pupils in chambers, the hero saw off this clever and ruthless rival for a coveted tenancy by being even more clever and ruthless (resorting, inter alia, to ensnaring TopFirst in a honeypot sting, using credit card fraud and fake email addresses, and then blackmailing him into submission).

Now comes the sequel. Law and Peace finds our Machiavellian former coffee-maker securely settled in chambers as a junior barrister and engaged on the first major trial of his career (acting for a bunch of eccentric seniors claiming damages for mental derangement caused by mobile phone mast emissions). And who should be on the other side (representing the phone company) but TopFirst. And what’s more, he’s out for vengeance.

How much lower will BabyBarista (“BB”) stoop to achieve his conquest this time? Quite low it seems. But he’s not alone. The book depicts a world in which lawyers with picaresque names like UpTights, OldRuin, SlipperySlope and TheVamp engage in a variety of antics calculated to bring their professions into disrepute.

They play drinking games in court. They hire bogus witnesses and interfere with real ones. They even attempt to brainwash the judge. BB himself thinks nothing of lending his wig and gown to a banker chum who pretends to be a barrister to impress a girlfriend (and who is so convincing in court that he decides next time to impersonate a judge). He conducts intimate meetings with TopFirst’s fiancee, TopFlirt, ostensibly to find out more about his enemy’s weak points. He then tries to frame TopFirst as an insider dealer, setting up a bogus account to buy shares in the phone company in his name, but TopFirst smells a rat and for much of the book BB is under threat of a pending complaint before the Bar Standards Board.

Sometimes BB worries that his success may be coming at too high a price, that he’s losing sight of the things that really matter. His mother, his barrister friend Claire and his colleagues in chambers, TheBusker and OldRuin, all urge him to take things easier, to be less obsessed by work. But BB remains driven by need: the need to pay off his mother’s crippling debts, the need to vanquish TopFirst and to prove himself in a system that encourages (indeed demands) cut-throat competition.

If there’s a serious point in Tim Kevan’s hilarious blog, perhaps that’s it. The modern Bar is so competitive and demanding, that you can only succeed by turning yourself into a devious and cynical bastard. But it doesn’t have to be that way. As OldRuin (a sort of elder statesman in chambers) observes,

“I know it might sound a little boring, but all I wanted to be was a barrister. Not a lound high-flying one or anything like that. Just a comfortably off one with a practice that could keep my family and bring me a few good friends along the way.”

There are worse ways of earning a living, though as TheBusker (a character seemingly based on Tim Kevan himself) observes, “I’d take being a novelist or maybe a professional surfer given the choice.”

If only it were so simple. Needless to say, BB succeeds at the end of the day. The case settles, the complaint is withdrawn and he gets the coveted red bag (to keep his wig and gown in, instead of the usual blue one) awarded by a leading barrister to his junior in recognition of a particularly well done job.

There’s even a mention of the Weekly Law Reports (thanks Tim!): see p 233.

For these and other reasons, and not least because it’s very funny, this book comes highly recommended.

Illustration by Alex Williams (taken from the cover)

A fantastic little find!

As I’m sure all legal professionals know paper work can mount up at a rate of knots; it’s amazing how much old work we file away and hoard in cupboards. Here at the ICLR we recently decided to tackle the issue of bundles galore and attacked our office with an abundance of bin bags.

I like to think that tidying up is chicken soup for the soul, as after all a tidy desk can equal a tidy mind. In amongst the oodles of old mooting competition files and out of date adverts from the late 90’s we found a few little gems. One in particular, unearthed by myself, was a little book entitled Arabinesque-at-Law by Hon. Sir Robert Megarry, the namesake of our building.


The book, written in 1968, is Megarry’s own little revival of Arabiniana, a sixteen page book written in 1843 by H.B.C (unfortunately the original book only displayed initials rather than the authors full name). Meggary’s reworking of the Serjeant Arabin’s career at The Old Bailey was published by Wildy & Sons in 1969, who are still trading today from their office at Lincoln’s Inn Archway.

Megarry also gave all of the profits from his red covered text to The Barristers’ Benevolent Association, a charity which is still very popular with many barristers and judges today (our Chairman, Judge Chambers, recently sold his watercolour prints of great legal cases for this very same cause).

This little insight into law in the late 60’s can still be purchased today from Wildy & Sons online. We would definitely recommend it!