Respect and Contempt
This presentation, then, has shown that lawyers managed contact and access to suit the pursuit of volume and the maximisation of profit rather than to benefit their clients. Whether reacting to external pressure or acting to utilise circumstances to their advantage - and the reality is likely to be that they did a bit of both - lawyers caused the clients to suffer.
More than simply behaving badly towards their clients, though, the lawyers conducted themselves in a manner that worked to degrade them. To return to the question I posed earlier: how were clients actually treated? My answer is, as if less than human.The first two sections of this chapter presented divergent accounts. The interviews showed lawyers claiming to behave with respect, while the participant observation documented their behaving disrespectfully. Lawyers, then, clearly did not act with respect. That they had claimed to do so may have been subterfuge or might have constituted self-delusion, as suggested in the preceding chapter. The reasons that underlay the discrepancy, though, should be seen to constitute a subplot, as the main point of this account must be that lawyers behaved disrespectfully towards their clients.
Disrespect has several layers to it - most benignly, elements such as disdain, dishonour and disgrace. However, lower levels reveal increasingly disagreeable thinking in terms of inferiority, debasement and, ultimately, worthlessness. The process of dehumanisation in which these lawyers were engaged should leave little doubt that their feelings occupied these murkier realms. Indeed, I believe that the degree of this disrespect amounted to contempt.
The process of developing contempt might be regarded as somewhat reflexive. For Bell (2005: 88), contempt involves the contemptor perceiving some deficiency in their contempted: a judgemental response premised upon the failure to attain some standard - moral, personal or social.
It has a primary role in ordering the moral condemnation of others (Schnall et al, 2008: 13). The contempted is attributed a lesser standing, until they finally assume object status. The comparative element of contempt is drawn out by Hume (1969: 437-41), who highlights the resultant ‘positive self-feeling' which can be located in the contemptor. Both Bell (2005) and Hume (1969) reveal the perceived negative qualities of the contempted, which they suggest precipitates a psychological withdrawal. Contemptors distance themselves from the object and cease to identify with it; rather than engage with it, they retreat (Wolfradt et al, 2003: 523). In order to communicate this separation, the contemptor makes their feelings known to peers, but does not necessarily attempt to do so with the object itself; instead, the contempted are often simply neglected and it is hoped that they will react by removing themselves from the contemptor (Brewer, 2007: 704-06).Applying these ideas to my own study, the lawyers displayed their disregard for clients through their behaviour towards them. They talked to each other in disparaging terms about these clients and effectively cold-shouldered the latter in their daily interactions. This may have created a need to reconsider the differentiation in practice upon which the RadicalZSausage Factory firm dichotomy has been arranged. Rather than seeing an opposition between client-centred and profit- centred approaches to legally aided criminal defence, it seems apposite to suppose that these lawyers all presented a lawyer-centred practice. Contact and access were managed in a manner that suited the lawyer so, when positioning profits ahead of clients, the lawyers were choosing the course of action which brought them greatest benefit. Whether acting or reacting, it is important not to lose sight of the extent to which lawyers opted to behave in the manner that maximised the positive consequences they experienced and minimised the negatives.
It would seem churlish to automatically chastise lawyers for seeking some measure of pleasantness in their working lives. However, the manner in which these lawyers went about achieving these advantageous situations can be criticised. Lawyers displayed disregard for the vulnerable individuals who relied on them: those whose rights of access to justice had been entrusted to them by the state.A lawyer-centred approach allowed them to behave with never a hint of shame or embarrassment at not meeting the ideals set out in the interviews, professional code of conduct (Lord Chancellor’s Department, 2001: 8) or practitioner guides they consulted (Cape, 2006b: 7). It meant that lawyers displayed no compunction in advising clients despite knowing little or nothing about them or their case. This was evident from routine exchanges like the following:
There is one other alternative [to a bail application]. You could enter a guilty plea now, spend a week in custody and then get it over with. Ofcourse, I haven’t read your file so the decision’s up to you really.
(Bob, solicitor, Radford Hope, OR - this client was curled up in a ball, sobbing, on the floor of her cell. The security staff deemed her mentally unstable)
Hi, my name is Leo. Now I know very little about your case, having just been given the papers by my colleague but I’m sure we can get you dealt with quickly. What is it?
(Leo, senior partner, Radcliffe and Musk, OR)
[Lawyer] Hello, I’m Ronette, I’m a solicitor with Radcliffes.
[Client] Hi. Will I be on before lunch?
[Lawyer] I don’t know. Look, let me tell you what will happen. Eileen [solicitor], who is another one of our solicitors, is doing some cases in Court Three, and I have a few to do in another court. Probably, I’ll just go over your case with you now and then she’ll represent you in court. So don’t be surprised if you don’t see me standing there for you! Now, let’s have a look at what the file says, shall we?
(Ronette, solicitor, and Sarah Coyte, client, Radcliffe and Musk, OR)
Some lawyers were unconcerned at admitting the extent to which their knowledge of the clients lagged behind that of a temporary - non-legal - research student, as in these examples:
You see, you know what’s going on more than we do.
There’s nothing about this in the notes, so I don’t know anything. I’m relying on you to tell me.(Leland, solicitor, Radford Hope, IC)
Dan is going to help me with her. He knows her better than me.
(Shelly, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, OR - to an usher)
She’s had four of us now. I need you to tell me about her. Someone like her, she’s complicated. Reading through her stuff, she needs continuity somewhere in her life, that’s why she’s so messed up. It’s confusing. I need you to put it together for me.
(Teresa, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, IC - on a juvenile client)
Many lawyers even found these situations amusing, as displayed in the following quotes:
So, what’s she like, Dan? Maybe you should be doing her trial for all I know ofher [laughs]! (Teresa, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, IC - on a youth who had a trial that morning) Do you want to take a couple ofthese from me, Dan? I'm sure you know more about them than me by now [laughs]?!
(Leo, senior partner, Radcliffe and Musk, IC)
So, Dan, are you going to tell me about her? I know nothing! You’re the one who should be representing her [laughs]!
(Ed, senior partner, Swining MacSage, IC)
I did not see the humour though, admittedly, I was unsure how best to act; to ingratiate myself with lawyers by laughing or try to help the clients by solemnly explaining what I knew. In the event, I tended to smile, vaguely in acknowledgment, and blurt out the details as best as I could remember. Lawyers, though, were ever unperturbed. They appeared similarly bereft of empathy on those occasions when clients expressed concern or opted to question the treatment they received. Clients were expected to accept lawyers’ behaviour. Anything else was to risk their ire, as in these examples:
[Client] Who’s going to be doing my sentencing?
[Lawyer] I don’t know. It might well be me.
[Client] Who’s that guy, is it Leo [senior partner]?
[Lawyer] Leo, yes.
[Client] Yeah, I want him.
I don’t want no more time [in prison]. I’m doing long enough already. I’m not saying you’re crap or anything. I just know him, he’s good.(David Warner, client, and Teresa, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, OR - Teresa’s response to me was: ‘What an arsehole. Did you hear him; asking for Leo?
I can’t believe that’)
Who does he think he is? He thinks he can just demand to see me anytime he’s in court. He’ll see whoever is free. Who does he think he is, asking me?
(Harold, partner, Radford Hope, IC)
What does he expect? He can’t just pick and choose who he wants to represent him.
(Leo, senior partner, Radcliffe and Musk, IC)
It seemed apparent that lawyers were largely focused on themselves, and that clients tended to get in the way. This can be seen from participant observation and interview alike, in quotes such as these:
I’d like to get McGrath [client] done quickly. On and gone. I want to go next door to Court Two - James [senior partner, Radford Hope] is making a cracking speech on a bail application for a murder client. I tried to get in but it was full. Get this out of the way then try again.
(Donna, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, OR - to a colleague)
The day is coming when we won’t be in police stations, that will go full circle, I’m quite certain about that and if you think about it, this was only 1984. That’s 30 years of duty solicitors and boom, out the window. I can’t say that on a personal level I would be disappointed because I am quite fed up with being woken up in the middle of the night and having to cart myself down to the police station even though police stations are actually the places where we can do the most good.
(Eileen, solicitor, Radcliffe and Musk, INT)
All this behaviour can be considered emblematic of a lawyer-centred approach. However, it found its apotheosis in the manner in which many lawyers had become so laid back as to express total detachment from the consequences of their practice. Several lawyers defined their role as ‘puzzle solving', a ‘detective story' or a ‘game'.
To some extent, then, it was a bit of fun for them. The application of this philosophy, and the low-stakes gambling it facilitated, can be witnessed in an experience at the Magistrates' Court with Radford Hope solicitor, Leland. On the way into the courtroom he gaily whispered:I haven't got the file, but luckily I heard James [senior partner] mention it in the diary meeting yesterday. So I'm going to try and bluff it.
(Leland, solicitor, Radford Hope, IC)
With the hearing concluded, Leland came to me at the back of the court. He was laughing and clearly pleased with himself:
Did you see me? I played the game, kept my head down, stayed at the back of court, hid. I let them do the talking, pretended I knew about the case and didn't really say anything. I bluffed it. I've never even seen the file.
(Leland, solicitor, Radford Hope, IC)
He later explained that:
You have to do that a lot, pretend to know the case. Over time, I've learnt to do it well. You try and let other people tell you the information, sit back a bit. I don't know what the client would have thought about it, he probably didn't have a clue what was going on [laughs]. Like me [laughs]!
(Leland, solicitor, Radford Hope, IC)
The complete indifference towards the client should be palpable.
The lower status of the clients suggests that there was great strain on the lawyerclient relationship. Contempt has been placed on the same continuum as resentment and anger by Solomon (1993: 233-35). Those emotions were identified in the previous chapter on attitudes. Having now considered behaviour, parallels can be drawn as we have witnessed negativity in both attitude and behaviour towards clients. For Solomon (1993), resentment and anger were aimed at an individual's equals and betters, but the previous chapter highlighted the manner in which these were displaced downwards onto clients. In addition to this, clients bore the full brunt of the contempt Solomon (1993) believes to be reserved for those of lower status. The strain this might place on the lawyer-client relationship can be seen from the work of the psychologist Gottman (1995). He prides himself on 94 per cent accuracy in using snippets of behaviour to predict the status of a relationship 15 years' hence (Gottman, 1995: 20). Of the four categories of negative emotional behaviour posited to exert the greatest impact, the most destructive is said to be contempt (Carstensen et al, 1995: 146-47).
However, we cannot yet settle upon an assessment of the lawyer-client relationship without considering one further issue: outcomes. In defining access to criminal justice, Young and Wall (1996: 4-5) suggest that the purpose of the criminal process was to produce authoritative conclusions of legal guilt and innocence. As such, access to justice is concerned with ensuring that the criminal process attains its goal fairly and legitimately. While attitudes and behaviour are important considerations along the way, the criminal process is ultimately judged on the outcomes it produces. Accordingly, the discussions of these two chapters might be seen as directing us towards that which follows. So it is that, in the next chapter, I move on to consider the manner in which the negativity that has so far been discerned impacted upon the outcomes of clients' cases.