For example, there’s no suggestion that the prime minister himself makes use of a foreign trust (or, indeed, does anything illegal). However, we are told by political analysts that he has a perception problem since his long-time lawyer works for a firm that advises on such trusts for other clients. Again, there has been no suggestion that the services provided to those other clients are in any way provided illegally or unethically.
Let us put to one side for one moment the fact that the same commentators pronouncing on the unfortunate public perception of the matter are the people who are responsible for shaping public perception. That’s bad enough. But are the pickings really so slim that the best we can do is try to impose some guilt by association on the basis of your lawyer’s other clients. I wonder how many television reporters would like being told that they have a perception problem because the firm they used to buy their house also defends criminals?
That’s a great comparison.