Moral Culpability

The lawyers acted as if clients were a different breed and duly set about categorising them. To some extent, this was apparent from the numerous sneering asides regard­ing clients being of a lower social class than the lawyers, as in these examples:

[Lawyer One] Having TV screens will be good for placating them.

[Lawyer Two] Of course it will. After all, that’s what this sort spend their days doing.

(Derek, solicitor, Sosig and Fest and Bob, solicitor, Radford Hope, OR - discussing the imminent installation of television screens in the court waiting area)

He came in here looking all smart. It’s just a pity his trainers didn’t match his suit [laughs]!

(Leland, solicitor, Radford Hope, IC)

I did not expect someone with such a posh name to look like that. Typical inbred.

(Shelly, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, IC) However, there appeared to be a more significant division drawn than simply that separating middle and working-class. The division was encapsulated by Bob from Radford Hope. On first meeting this solicitor, at the beginning of my research, he went out of his way to define the ‘type’ of client they dealt with as an ‘underclass’. All lawyers, albeit often less explicitly, articulated a distinction between us and them at some point, as in the following:

This is just what they’re like. They won't accept reality. They think they can live their lives like that [committing crime]. It’s a total lack of responsibility. They don’t deserve help.

(Bob, solicitor, Radford Hope, IC)

These are regular clients. They come from one of our crime families. Crime’s a way oflife for that kind.

(Ed, senior partner, Swining MacSage, IC)

She’ll be back. As soon as she needs something, she’ll just steal it. It’s a way of life. She’s bound to activate that suspended sentence. They’re all the same.

(Leland, solicitor, Radford Hope, IC)

The lawyers clearly thought very little of their clients’ characters. This was a per­spective carried through into the most significant trait of all: lawyers’ working assumptions that clients were factually guilty.