Can someone explain to Labour what lawyers do?
Samira Taghavi writes:
Earlier this month, Labour’s health spokesperson Dr Ayesha Verrall questioned Health Minister Simeon Brown about the appointment of lawyer (and medical doctor) Roderick Mulgan to the Medical Council of New Zealand.
Among the matters raised by Verrall was that Mulgan has sometimes represented – amongst the many regulatory-body cases he handles – medical practitioners facing allegations of sexual misconduct. The exchange was brought to my attention by several lawyers who were troubled by what Verrall’s questioning appeared to suggest about the role of defence counsel.
Verrall’s questions – probably written by a non-legally qualified staffer – displayed an egregious lack of understanding of the delineation between the respective roles of advocate on the one hand and adjudicator on the other. Lawyers, however, understand the distinction well.
As a criminal defence barrister myself, I found the premise underlying Verrall’s questions insulting to the defence bar and contrary to the fundamental principles of our justice system. From her line of questioning, it appears to follow that defence counsel offering representation to those facing unpleasant allegations should be presumptively barred from appointment, or be very seldom appointed, to the bench or other adjudicative positions.
In fact, a lawyer’s willingness to represent somebody accused of serious or repugnant conduct tells us entirely nothing about that lawyer’s personal values, sympathies or capacity to exercise independent judgment. Rather, the promotion of the rule of law requires lawyers to fearlessly advocate for clients against the vast power of the State or regulatory bodies that can destroy livelihoods.
It is somewhat alarming that a senior Labour MP seems not to understand (or not to care) that lawyers advocate for clients, regardless of their personal views. Does she think Golriz Ghahraman would be unsuitable for certain roles, because of her previous clients?
A lawyer’s responsibility is not to decide whether a client is sufficiently virtuous to deserve representation, but to ensure that allegations are properly tested, legal rights are protected and consequences are imposed according to law. This means a lawyer who argues that a doctor should retain the ability to practise no more endorses the alleged misconduct than a defence barrister seeking an acquittal or proportionate sentence endorses the offending alleged against a criminal defendant.
It’s sad one has to explain to a senior MP (and former Minister), like you would have to explain it to a 10 year old.