It has always been the case that things done as law students might well be raised when seeking to be admitted as an officer of the court. A track record of deliberate transgressing of the law, for example – whatever the issue – may not be conducive to success.
This has been thrown into stark relief by recent events in the United States, where a group of conservative judges have announced that they will not hire law students or undergraduates from Columbia University in response to its handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
While it would be highly unlikely for any Australian judge to take similar action, unlawful activity during a protest – even while a student and prior to admission – might well have consequences when seeking employment. Once admitted to the legal profession, the obligation to be careful about how, when and where we protest becomes even more acute.
While lawyers have as much right to protest as any other citizen, they must still respect their ethical duties, even in the heat of ideological battle. That means that any protest must always respect the duty to the courts and the administration of justice.
Like it or not officers of the court are the face of the law, and the way we behave will inform the public’s view of the legal system; the credibility of the system rests with us. That means that any protest must be both respectful and, of course, lawful; that means that any form of protest which is illegal, or is likely to bring the profession into disrepute or discredit the legal system, should not be indulged.
It should go without saying that such protests should not carry over into our professional lives, and never be conducted while in court. Recent events, however, suggest a reminder would not go astray.
Not long ago, a representative of NSW Young Lawyers attended an admissions ceremony wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional middle-eastern headdress which has become a way of indicating support for Palestine.
While no doubt based on good intentions, the wearer was roundly (and rightly) criticised by members of the judiciary – not so much for the substance of the protest as for the forum.
In short, the court is not the place for protest, regardless of the importance of the issue or the passion of the protester; that should not be news to an officer of the court, nor to those who aspire to become one. The fact that the protest occurred at an admissions ceremony – where the duty to the court and the administration of justice is very much front of mind – is doubly problematic.
What is clear is that practitioners should be under no illusion that any form of protest while in court is in any way permissible. The duty to the court and the administration of justice is non-negotiable and 24/7; anyone thinking of copying the events in New South Wales can expect no sympathy from the bench.
In any event, lawyers have a far more effective means of protest – we are trained to articulate arguments and present them persuasively, in logical and understandable fashion. Any argument we wish to make will be stronger and more effective if it is put forward utilising our skills, taking the emotion out of it and presenting a calm and clear position – and, of course, doing it at the right time and place.
Share this article