*/
Law confidential?
'A secret spoken finds wings' – Robert Jordan, The Path of Daggers
Lawyers prate on much more about confidentiality and privilege than they do about the burden and standard of proof. In my second month of pupillage, I was standing in the back bar of historic premises then frequented by barristers and journalists in equal quantities: two professions that make such a fuss about keeping secrets seemed to be gossiping to destruction about every major case being tried in the metropolis. This chatter was punctuated with reminiscences beginning with slightly worry phrases such as ‘I remember a client I had once…’ or ‘This informant told our editor…’
I discussed it about a year later in the same premises with a group of Silks at a table which was always reserved for them and at which you only sat by invitation. One even had his name in gold lettering inscribed on the back of his chair. I was feeling very honoured to have been invited. They reassured me. ‘Chatham House Rule,’ said the named chair. ‘Applies in every Gentleman’s Club and this place. Can’t divulge a thing to anyone.’ I started to enquire what would happen if you did but received such a forbidding collective stare that I backed off the point. One elderly looking gentleman at the table with black-rimmed spectacles, who I discovered later was 32 years old, gave me additional valuable information: ‘Be very suspicious if anyone ever says Chatham House Rules! There is only one. It is in the singular. Use of the plural may raise concern.’ He then slugged back a full glass of gin with tonic and slumped in his seat.
Nevertheless, I have wondered over the years whether our clients entirely appreciate the Chatham House principle. There it is, however, living alongside all those ridiculous measures to protect a tsunami of data which cannot ultimately be protected. Might not a friend of mine at the junior Bar, Clive Eckill, have had the right idea? ‘I just tell everybody everything about myself,’ he said ‘what I earn, what tax I pay, who I lust after, all the silly things I have done. It frees you – entirely.’ It also resulted, at a much later stage, in a very favourable financial settlement for his spouse after an exceptionally acrimonious divorce, so perhaps it has limitations as a theory. I do, however, feel very sorry for those whose houses were burgled and who are castigated for not keeping their papers in a treble safe concreted under the foundations. Or those who left a briefcase on the back seat of a car for a few fatal moments whilst popping into the off-licence. Not to mention those who lose a disk at work, or a hundred and one other entirely human failures when faced with this hydra of electronic data.
We all do it. Even a high-ranking Justice is reported to have talked about some issues that might possibly surface in a case which, at the time of this entry, she will be trying very shortly; not that this seems a bar to me. I wonder whether dear Clive might not have had a point after all. Sadly, I cannot discuss it with him as he has entered something of a twilight world, having subsequently married a gym instructress from Yorkshire, and is now in sheltered accommodation.
My most toe-curling incident as a junior was going to a Crown court in west London, to defend a man in a multi-handed robbery trial. I met the learned friends, and, being not before two o’clock, we decamped to the local pub. Our prosecutor seemed a rather dour man. He later rose to high judicial office in the criminal law. However, in his case, looks were deceiving. He was just a bit shy. After half-a-pint of beer, he became hysterically funny, telling us about the eccentricities of His Honour Judge Grasmere, who was to try us. Barristers have a slight tendency to play to the gallery and seeing some old gent in the corner laughing his socks off, we became a little theatrical.
It was therefore something of a shock to find out in the early afternoon that the same old man was walking into the jury box in our courtroom. Our opponent asked for the jury panel to retire and then rose: ‘I’m sorry, your Honour, but in an unguarded moment and in a place of refreshment, we made an unfortunate reference to someone in our case and it was overheard by a putative juror.’ Judge Grasmere was much amused. ‘About the defendants?’ ‘No, your Honour.’ ‘The officer?’ ‘Not the officer.’ ‘Yourselves?’ ‘Not precisely.’ ‘Then who? Who was it?... Oh, I see.’ It was a most unhappy trial.
William Byfield Gutteridge Chambers. William Byfield is the pseudonym of a senior member of the Bar. Gutteridge Chambers, and the events that happen there, are entirely fictitious.
Lawyers prate on much more about confidentiality and privilege than they do about the burden and standard of proof. In my second month of pupillage, I was standing in the back bar of historic premises then frequented by barristers and journalists in equal quantities: two professions that make such a fuss about keeping secrets seemed to be gossiping to destruction about every major case being tried in the metropolis. This chatter was punctuated with reminiscences beginning with slightly worry phrases such as ‘I remember a client I had once…’ or ‘This informant told our editor…’
I discussed it about a year later in the same premises with a group of Silks at a table which was always reserved for them and at which you only sat by invitation. One even had his name in gold lettering inscribed on the back of his chair. I was feeling very honoured to have been invited. They reassured me. ‘Chatham House Rule,’ said the named chair. ‘Applies in every Gentleman’s Club and this place. Can’t divulge a thing to anyone.’ I started to enquire what would happen if you did but received such a forbidding collective stare that I backed off the point. One elderly looking gentleman at the table with black-rimmed spectacles, who I discovered later was 32 years old, gave me additional valuable information: ‘Be very suspicious if anyone ever says Chatham House Rules! There is only one. It is in the singular. Use of the plural may raise concern.’ He then slugged back a full glass of gin with tonic and slumped in his seat.
Nevertheless, I have wondered over the years whether our clients entirely appreciate the Chatham House principle. There it is, however, living alongside all those ridiculous measures to protect a tsunami of data which cannot ultimately be protected. Might not a friend of mine at the junior Bar, Clive Eckill, have had the right idea? ‘I just tell everybody everything about myself,’ he said ‘what I earn, what tax I pay, who I lust after, all the silly things I have done. It frees you – entirely.’ It also resulted, at a much later stage, in a very favourable financial settlement for his spouse after an exceptionally acrimonious divorce, so perhaps it has limitations as a theory. I do, however, feel very sorry for those whose houses were burgled and who are castigated for not keeping their papers in a treble safe concreted under the foundations. Or those who left a briefcase on the back seat of a car for a few fatal moments whilst popping into the off-licence. Not to mention those who lose a disk at work, or a hundred and one other entirely human failures when faced with this hydra of electronic data.
We all do it. Even a high-ranking Justice is reported to have talked about some issues that might possibly surface in a case which, at the time of this entry, she will be trying very shortly; not that this seems a bar to me. I wonder whether dear Clive might not have had a point after all. Sadly, I cannot discuss it with him as he has entered something of a twilight world, having subsequently married a gym instructress from Yorkshire, and is now in sheltered accommodation.
My most toe-curling incident as a junior was going to a Crown court in west London, to defend a man in a multi-handed robbery trial. I met the learned friends, and, being not before two o’clock, we decamped to the local pub. Our prosecutor seemed a rather dour man. He later rose to high judicial office in the criminal law. However, in his case, looks were deceiving. He was just a bit shy. After half-a-pint of beer, he became hysterically funny, telling us about the eccentricities of His Honour Judge Grasmere, who was to try us. Barristers have a slight tendency to play to the gallery and seeing some old gent in the corner laughing his socks off, we became a little theatrical.
It was therefore something of a shock to find out in the early afternoon that the same old man was walking into the jury box in our courtroom. Our opponent asked for the jury panel to retire and then rose: ‘I’m sorry, your Honour, but in an unguarded moment and in a place of refreshment, we made an unfortunate reference to someone in our case and it was overheard by a putative juror.’ Judge Grasmere was much amused. ‘About the defendants?’ ‘No, your Honour.’ ‘The officer?’ ‘Not the officer.’ ‘Yourselves?’ ‘Not precisely.’ ‘Then who? Who was it?... Oh, I see.’ It was a most unhappy trial.
William Byfield Gutteridge Chambers. William Byfield is the pseudonym of a senior member of the Bar. Gutteridge Chambers, and the events that happen there, are entirely fictitious.
Law confidential?
'A secret spoken finds wings' – Robert Jordan, The Path of Daggers
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
Most of us like to think we would risk our career in order to meet our ethical obligations, so why have so many lawyers failed to hold the line? asks Flora Page
If your current practice environment is bringing you down, seek a new one. However daunting the change, it will be worth it, says Anon Barrister
Creating advocacy opportunities for juniors is now the expectation but not always easy to put into effect. Tom Mitcheson KC distils developing best practice from the Patents Court initiative already bearing fruit
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
National courts are now running the bulk of the world’s war crimes cases and corporate prosecutions are part of this growing trend, reports Chris Stephen