Requiring solicitors to take a version of the doctors’ Hippocratic oath could help to cement their commitment to acting ethically, the oversight regulator suggested today. Matthew Hill, chief executive of the Legal Services Board, said he was ‘personally quite interested’ in exploring the impact that an oath could have on practitioners entering the profession.
Hill told a Westminster Legal Policy Forum conference today that there was ‘something really special’ about belonging to a profession in which the public places its trust. But there may need to be further action to ensure lawyers understand the ‘privileges and obligations’ of this status, he said. ‘If some sort of meaningful oath can be found I think that is a very interesting idea,’ added Hill.
Hill’s remarks come at a time of vigorous debate within the profession on issues such as the cab rank rule and acting for clients in so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation. The Post Office Horizon IT scandal has also thrown up questions about the duty of lawyers working in-house.
The Chartered Institute for Legal Executives (CILEX) already requires all new entrants to recite an oath to underline their commitment to good service and professional standards. The oath includes a promise to ‘protect my independence as a lawyer, uphold the rule of law and act at all times with integrity’. The CILEX oath is more than 10 years old but there has been little interest from other representative bodies in adopting something similar. Judges, however, take two oaths or affirmations: the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath.
Today’s conference heard of a ‘crisis of ethics’ in the legal profession. Professor Robert Barrington, professor of anti-corruption practice at the University of Sussex, said the role of professional enabler for Russian oligarchs and other corrupt or criminal individuals in civil law ‘can’t be brushed aside by saying everyone has a right to representation’.
He added: ‘The debate can only take place if those within the legal profession are willing to accept there is a problem… in certain circumstances there is a group of clients who should not be represented by lawyers. Where the line should be drawn is exactly the right question. The question is not “should a line be drawn”. The problem with the debate at the moment is the legal profession seems to be discussing only whether a line should be drawn.’
