Factual Guilt

Lawyers from all firms routinely discussed and approached clients as if they were guilty, whether or not they had talked to them or read their file. Sometimes this was based on what the prosecutor told them, others on past experience of that client; it could even be premised on the area in which they lived.

Believe her? Look at the colour of this file. Never believe a client from there. Did I just say that? Whoops!

(Teresa, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, IC - at this firm, files were colour-coded for different areas of the city. This one came from a notoriously run-down, working-class, estate)

If there’s one person you shouldn’t lie to it’s your solicitor. But they all do. They all lie! Just lie after lie, like I don’t know they did it.

(Leland, solicitor, Radford Hope, IC)

Further, though, oftentimes clients would tell the lawyers they were not guilty but the lawyer refused to believe them. The following statements, made by lawyers fol­lowing meetings with clients, facing charges of theft, fraud and indecent assault respectively, highlight something of the pervading cynicism:

No, I didn’t believe her. Not at all. Why, did I do a good impression of making it seem like I believed her?!

(Eileen, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, IC)

He doesn’t know lies from truths any more. People like that get to a point where they start believing their own lies and no longer know the truth.

(Bob, solicitor, Radford Hope, IC)

He isn't pleasant at all is he? Clearly guilty, he's a sexual predator. I wish I didn't have to take him to trial tomorrow. Maybe I'll get him to crack in the morning.

(Ihomas₁ solicitor, Swining MacSage, IC)

The lawyers appeared to take on the role of arbiters of truth, and in so doing, were unsympathetic to the stories of their clients.

All three strands were reflected in the following exchange between a barrister, Andy, and the Radcliffe and Musk solicitor, Shelly, immediately following a confer­ence with a client. This young man denied a very serious assault charge for stabbing another in a fight and scheduled to go to trial the following month. While the law­yers were polite and accepted his story during the meeting, after the client left they began mocking him:

[Lawyer One] Well, do you agree or do you think I was being terribly pessimistic and he should have a trial?

[Lawyer Two] [laughs] Well if you win a trial like that then you're winning it on the basis of something you've said and not something he's said.

[Lawyer One] He's as thick as pig shit. I mean he's a nice lad but, you know.

[Lawyer Two] I don't know how you said ‘an intelligent man like you' without pissing yourself. Really, because he's such an idiot [laughs]!

[Lawyer One] Well [laughs]. Put a suit on him and he's almost presentable.

[Lawyer Two] Yeah, but have you seen that tattoo? That's boxing gloves. I was sitting there working it out. He smacked somebody else that's how he broke his wrist but he said that he just banged it. Such a liar. Oh well, he said nothing was going to come of it so, well, I mean if something comes up then it serves him right.

[Lawyer One] Yeah.

[Lawyer Two] No, I think he's in big, big, big trouble.

[Lawyer One] Yeah.

(Andy, barrister, and Shelly, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, OR)

Exchanges such as this typified the manner in which lawyers talked of their clients throughout the participant observation.

Spending time with these lawyers revealed what appeared to be a strained lawyer-client relationship across the firms. The lawyers routinely displayed nega­tive attitudes towards their clients; they thought little of them and were openly derogatory. This participant observation data has supplemented that of the formal interviews to cast a different light on the issue of attitudes in the lawyer-client rela­tionship. The disparity between the two forms of data is explored in the following section.

x-x-x-