Anti-lawyer rhetoric among politicians and the media seems to be at an all-time high. What impact is this having on practitioners, and on recruitment into practice areas that are the targets of public opprobrium?
This October Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, published the names of “activist judges” he said should be sacked because of their “pro-migration bias”. Following this, The Times reported that some immigration judges were “too scared” to go to work “for fear of being named in the press or by Jenrick – and consequently confronted by angry members of the public.”
This isn’t a new development, having previously occurred with the “Enemies of the People” headlines that followed the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Brexit process. Another intervention in 2020 by the then Home Secretary Priti Patel, who accused “activist lawyers” of frustrating attempts to remove failed asylum seekers, was rapidly followed by an attempted attack on a prominent firm of immigration lawyers.
It fosters misunderstanding about what we do, undermines public trust in legal representation, and can even lead to harassment or threats against lawyers and their teams.
With the hostile language from politicians and the media having, if anything, ramped up since then, The Brief spoke to a selection of lawyers whose work might not be considered popular by various elements of the public, to find out about the ongoing impact of anti-lawyer rhetoric – including the possibility that it puts off the next generation from pursuing careers in vital but unloved practice areas.
Foundations of justice
Gary McIndoe, managing partner at the boutique immigration firm Latitude Law, says, “As an immigration lawyer, I often represent clients whose stories are complex and sometimes misunderstood in the media.
“I’ve handled cases that have attracted significant public attention, and occasionally the coverage implies that by representing a client, I’m endorsing their actions. In reality, my role is simply to ensure their legal rights are upheld, which is the foundation of our justice system.
“When media rhetoric turns hostile toward lawyers, it has real consequences. It fosters misunderstanding about what we do, undermines public trust in legal representation, and can even lead to harassment or threats against lawyers and their teams.
“It also risks putting off the next generation of lawyers – talented, principled people who might think twice about entering fields like immigration or criminal law because of how the work is portrayed and the emotional toil involved. Responsible reporting helps protect both the individuals in the profession and the principle that everyone deserves fair access to justice.”
Road to nowhere
Shazia Ali, CEO at Scarsdale Solicitors, believes the misrepresentation of solicitors who act for defendants accused of motoring offences makes it harder to recruit top talent, and is threatening the security of her business.
She says, “Representing individuals accused of motoring offences, particularly those as serious as drink driving and drug driving, presents a unique set of challenges for me and my team at Scarsdale Solicitors in Rochdale.
“It is a common misconception that our role is to ‘get people off the hook,’ as if we're actively working against justice. In reality we are simply doing our job, upholding the fundamental principle that everyone deserves a fair hearing and robust legal representation.”
Our role isn't to condone the alleged actions but to ensure due process is followed, that evidence is properly scrutinised, and that our clients' rights are protected.
She says the biggest obstacle she face as a solicitor specialising in motoring offences is the pervasive negative public perception. “If I tell somebody that I represent people charged with drink driving, or that I am a solicitor specialising in speeding offences, I often get a look that suggests I’m morally compromised, when in fact the opposite is true,” she says.
“I have carved a career as an expert in motoring offences and a solicitor defending people charged with crimes such as drink or drug driving, as a specialist niche to fund my pro bono work.”
Due process
Ali says, “People see motoring offences, specifically ones where somebody may have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs, as clear-cut cases of irresponsible behaviour, and they assume anyone defending such an individual must be trying to exploit loopholes or obstruct justice. However, our role isn't to condone the alleged actions but to ensure due process is followed, that evidence is properly scrutinised, and that our clients' rights are protected.
“Were the drugs prescribed? Were there mitigating circumstances? Had the rules applying to that highway changed recently without due notification to residents?
“Very often people accused could face the demise of their whole life. They may lose family, friendships, and their job. The least they deserve is a fair trial.”
Effect on talent
This public perception issue, Ali continues, directly impacts upon her ability to attract and retain top legal talent to Scarsdale. “Aspiring solicitors, understandably, want to work in areas of law that are viewed positively and offer a clear path to career progression,” she says.
We often find ourselves explaining, repeatedly, that we are advocates for the law, not for lawbreaking.
“The stigma associated with defending those accused of motoring offences means many shy away from this crucial area. It can be difficult to convince bright, empathetic lawyers to join a field where they might be unfairly judged for simply doing their professional duty.
“We often find ourselves explaining, repeatedly, that we are advocates for the law, not for lawbreaking.
“Ultimately, while the public may view our work as morally ambiguous, for us, it's about ensuring justice for all, regardless of the accusation. It's a challenging but absolutely vital aspect of our legal system, and one that requires not just legal acumen but also a thick skin.”
Counting the cost
We tend to think of anti-lawyer rhetoric as mainly being targeted at immigration practitioners or those who represent defendants whose alleged offending puts them beyond the pale of public sympathy. However, it can also emanate from another political direction and target those who advise clients on legally permissible strategies to protect their wealth.
Emma Taylor, partner and head of vulnerable client division at Goughs Solicitors, says, “Legal professionals help individuals navigate some of life’s most complex and emotionally charged decisions. Legal frameworks like trusts, care fee planning, and lasting powers of attorney exist to protect people — particularly the vulnerable — and lawyers play a vital role in making those protections accessible and understandable.
This narrative can discourage people from seeking the help they need at critical moments due to fear, stigma, or confusion.
“When the media criticises lawyers simply for representing unpopular clients or using entirely legal and appropriate strategies, it does more than mislead; it undermines public trust in the entire legal system. This narrative can discourage people from seeking the help they need at critical moments due to fear, stigma, or confusion.
“There’s also a growing risk to personal safety. Hostile rhetoric has, in some cases, led to harassment or threats against lawyers who are doing nothing more than their professional duty: upholding the rule of law and ensuring access to justice.
“Beyond that, the message it sends to future lawyers is damaging. Capable and empathetic individuals – the kind of people the legal profession truly needs – may decide this isn’t a career they want to pursue.
“A fair and functioning society depends on access to legal support. It’s time to support the people who make that possible — not undermine or vilify them.”
* Image generated using AI
Visit
Connect with Shazia Ali via LinkedIn
Connect with Emma Taylor via LinkedIn
