The Hindu Business Line : Causes `at best dubious' and `positively dangerous'

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," is a line from King Henry VI. But, please don't. For, here they are, the whole clan, captured in the pages of Advocates by David Pannick, from Oxford (www.oup.com) . The book, though old is recently out as the first Indian edition.

Worth giving a hearing to, because it is billed as "a thought-provoking and often amusing account of the principle, practices, and morality of one of the most frequently maligned and misunderstood of professions." Only, the preface starts on an eerie note: "It may seem somewhat presumptuous for a barrister whose first client was hanged to write a book on advocates."

Hang on, though, to read the intro where the author outlines the task of the advocate in one all-encompassing line, thus: "To be argumentative, inquisitive, indignant or apologetic - as the occasion demands - and always persuasive on behalf of the person who pays for his voice." And there's more: "The advocate is required to entice, to flatter, to insult," all to advance his cause, that is, case.

The author devotes a chapter to clients. A quote you can't forget is from what a counsel told the House of Lords in 1967: "In criminal cases a large number of the clients are rogues and in many civil cases the clients are unreliable."

At times, the cause may be `hopeless beyond redemption,' as in a 1616 case when the defendant pleaded `infancy as a defence to an action', despite `sufficient proof' that he was 63 years old! "A litigious client of mine, who had lost an important case, was unwilling to accept that this might be the end of the road; can we sue the judges for negligence, he enquired," narrates Pannick, from his practice.

There are infinite ways in which a judge can impede the effective performance of the conscientious advocate, says the author. "There is a temptation for the fussy judge to seek to regulate every aspect of the advocate's court life," including dress code.

For this, the book gives the example of a 1969 order that a New York judge passed, prohibiting a woman attorney from presenting the case until she wore `suitable, conventional, and appropriate clothes'. It seems she was wearing a dress the hemline of which was approximately five inches above the knee.

What a pity, you may whine, but there was this anti-climax. The Supreme Court of New York quashed the judge's order, "noting that there was no suggestion that her appearance `in any way created distraction or in any manner disrupted the ordinary proceedings of the court' or was `so immodest or revealing as to shock one's sense of propriety'." But there was a dissenting voice from Justice Del Vecchio, who said that the dress `revealed substantially more of the human frame than is customarily displayed in a courtroom.'

Acting in client's interest may not be in the interest of the society always, concedes the author. "The advocate daily faces difficult moral dilemmas," because the causes may be `at best dubious' and possibly `positively dangerous'.

A chapter titled `morality' speaks of how the public often doubt the morality of advocacy. Ethics of the profession are not plain and obvious to the layman, especially when there is `advocacy on behalf of the evil, the dangerous, and the simply unpleasant elements in our society'.

To help, Pannick has a suggestion: "We need to explain to the public, the absence of a profession of advocates, with a duty to represent to the best of our ability all clients irrespective of their merit, would cause much more moral harm to occur within the legal system."

That apparently remains an unfinished task, because the book concludes by saying that advocates have not been persuasive in the cause of their own profession. "But they have a very strong case," Pannick hastens to add.

Do you still want to try out the Bard's suggestion?

SayCheek@TheHindu.co.in