The Law Society and the Post Office

Clamouring about the Law Society's embarrassment on the Post Office growing

On Wednesday, I wrote a tweet and LinkedIn post of mine gently (*coughs*) ridiculing the Law Society, Award Ceremonies and one particular award at a 2018 award ceremony to the current General Counsel for the Post Office, Ben Foat. Award ceremonies and the Law Society are often, to my mind, and with apologies to the often great people that actually win awards or serve the Law Society or its Council, the most perfect combination of vacuity.

The text of the above link is Exhibit A for my case.

This has prompted something of a debate behind the scenes about just how awful the Law Society are or what the justifications are for the Law Society keeping schtum about this and the PO Scandal generally (frankly, some guff about procedural fairness).

I will leave out the swearing and incredulity aimed at the Law Society. And simply quote this response from someone who knows the Law Society reasonably well, indeed was once a Council Member. Paul Gilbert.

As is Paul’s modus, he expresses what I feel better than I could:

The last President said ethics would be a key plank in her platform – cue a year of tumbleweed at a time of the greatest ethical scandal and crisis for lawyers in my lifetime.

The Law Society Council has in-house representatives who, as far as I know, have said nothing. I do not think the Law Society Council, as a body, has said anything.

The line that we must await the findings of the Inquiry should not stop an abject and fulsome apology for the harm lawyers have done.

The Ben Foat article should stay online as an example of how the Law Society itself has got things wrong and should be accompanied with the Society’s apology and regret.

The first lesson to learn is that the profession facilitated the greatest miscarriage of justice ever.

I should give the last word to the opposition. So let me take you to this piece by last year’s President of Tumbleweed and ask yourself this question: is professional ethics or PR behind this kind of comment?

The profession has also long been the subject of sustained but often unjustified public criticism, sadly coming increasingly from parliamentarians with a political agenda.