Former lord chancellor says lawyers must act without fear or favour at LIDW

Alex Chalk stresses lawyers cannot declare conscientious objection while upholding client rights

At the recent London International Disputes Week (LIDW), former lord chancellor Alex Chalk KC insisted that lawyers have no right to declare conscientious objections to clients or cases if they are to uphold the profession’s fundamental duty to act “without fear or favour.”

Chalk, now a partner at the international law firm Jones Day, was moderating a panel discussion focused on the responsibilities of dispute resolution practitioners. The debate centred on the cab rank rule, a traditional principle applying to barristers, which requires them to accept any case within their competence, regardless of personal beliefs.

Professor Joan Loughrey, head of law at Queen’s University Belfast, argued that the cab rank rule should not be applied beyond its original scope, which was primarily to ensure access to legal defence in criminal cases. She cautioned that the ethos has since permeated the wider legal profession and risks being misused as a “fig leaf” to justify lawyers taking on powerful clients indiscriminately.

When Chalk questioned the issue of access to justice, asking if arms manufacturers face difficulties obtaining legal advice, Loughrey responded that she was unaware of such problems. The exchange highlighted a tension between lawyers’ duties and the moral considerations of the cases they handle.

The event also explored the conflict lawyers face when their personal convictions clash with professional obligations. Employment barrister Hana Abas of Cloisters Chambers noted a growing awareness among younger lawyers of this dilemma. She emphasised that lawyers do have a right to manifest protected beliefs at work but warned, “We don’t get to pick and choose which beliefs are legally protected.”

Abas advocated for a “safety valve” allowing for conscientious objection under certain circumstances, reflecting a nuanced approach to balancing individual rights with professional duties.

However, Chalk firmly rejected the idea that lawyers could declare conscientious objections without undermining the legal system’s impartiality. “If you think people should be able to act without fear or favour, there is a price,” he said. “And that price is you cannot make declarations of conscientious objection.” He warned that such declarations could pressure colleagues to follow suit, eroding the necessary separation between lawyers and their clients’ causes.

The panel collectively opposed recent executive orders by the Trump administration that targeted law firms based on their client rosters, arguing these measures threatened the principle that lawyers should not be penalised for representing unpopular clients.

Yet, arbitration expert James E. Castello of Arbitration Chambers raised a potential issue. Legal challenges against these orders have invoked free speech protections, relying on courts recognising law firms’ advocacy as their own speech under the First Amendment. Castello cautioned that this approach might create future difficulties by conflating lawyers’ speech with their clients’ positions.

The discussion underscored the ongoing tension within the legal profession between maintaining impartial representation and respecting the individual conscience of practitioners. As the profession evolves, especially among younger lawyers, the debate over how far conscientious objection should be tolerated is likely to continue.