10th November 2021
Today is the first year anniversary of this daily blog.
Woo hoo.
Every single day since 10 November 2020 there has been a post on this site: some long, some short, some ignored, and some which have been very popular indeed.
There have been 1.5 million(!) hits on this blog in the last twelve months.
Thank you to everyone who reads and promotes the posts – and a particular thank you to those whose kind donations make it possible for me to justify the opportunity cost and time to keep this daily blog going on a free basis for everyone.
*
So today let us look at a story at the heart of law and policy and politics: lawyer-politicians.
The story of Geoffrey Cox is in the news – and over at Joshua Rozenberg’s blog, there is a sterling defence of Cox.
And if you want a sterling defence of Cox then there is where you should go.
This post is instead a half-hearted and implicit defence of Cox.
It is however a defence of having lawyer-politicians, arguing from general principle rather than unattractive facts of this particular case.
*
Do we want lawyer-politicians?
By this I mean, members of either house of parliament who are also practicing lawyers.
In the current (unreformed) house of lords, there is no doubt that there is immense benefit from having cross-benchers who are practising lawyers such as Davids Pannick and Anderson, as well as retired law lords who may also be earning fees as arbitrators or mediators.
And if that is to the benefit of the house of lords then it is difficult to argue from principle that it would also not be a benefit to the commons – even if the quality of the lawyers is less stellar.
The office of lord chancellor (which is also secretary of state for justice), and the jobs of the law officers (attorney-general and solicitor-general) all presuppose that there are competent lawyers in parliament to fill such posts (though the lord chancellorship can also be held by non-lawyers).
Practising lawyers can only be banished from the house of commons once there has been proper consideration of what would then happen with the role of law officers.
Maybe it is time to take these roles out of the hands of politicians; maybe not.
But that is a decision which would have to faced before we get rid of practising lawyers from the house of commons.
*
It is a public good that there lawyer-politicians in parliament.
Law-makers make laws, and so a professional background for politicians in dealing with laws is thereby a public benefit.
It is also a public good that lawyer-politicians can be candid and semi-independent law officers telling the government unwelcome truths.
The problem with the current law officers is not that they are lawyers, but that they are unwilling to be robust in their special autonomous role.
*
Law is one of the main ways of crafting public policy, and so the better laws we have the more public policy will benefit.
And the better the understanding of our legislators about how law works in practice, the better public policy will be generally.
We should therefore be glad there are lawyer-politicians in general, even if some examples are difficult to accept politically.
And if the objection to a particular lawyer-politician is political, then it should be a matter for politics how that particular case is dealt with.
*
It could be argued that on election, any lawyer who becomes a member of parliament should cease practicing, and become a full-time politician.
They would still have the benefit fo their legal training and experience.
We would still have lawyers in parliament, they would just be former practising lawyers.
That is a good argument.
But my fear would be that this would limit the number of lawyers who become members of parliament – and already there may be too few for there to be competent law officers (and shadow law officers).
*
All this said, however, there can be little sympathy for Cox.
Presumably he cannot even hide behind the cab-rank rule, as that famous rule that barristers must accept instructions does not apply to foreign work.
And voting in the commons from a tax haven, and (it seems) working in that tax haven from his commons office, is not the most impressive feat for a lawyer-politician in the great traditions of the Bar.
The argument about ‘experience’ does not wash either, as a Queens Counsel can be presumed to have valuable experiences in any of their client work.
So it is hard to make a positive case for Cox, and so I will not.
He is, however, saved by the general argument: that if we are to have lawyer-politicians then there will have to be the Cox apples in the barrel as well as those whose practices are less, ahem, glamorous.
*
So I mark the first anniversary of this daily blog with a defence of lawyer-politicians generally (but with no explicit defence of Cox in particular).
Thank you again for reading, promoting and supporting this daily law and policy blog, and I will see how I can keep up going on this daily basis for another year.
******
This daily law and policy blog needs your help to continue – for the benefit of you and other readers
Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.
This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.
If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
*****
You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.
Comments will not be published if irksome.