The Client Comes First
We are in the middle of considering a series where tactics in litigation is compared to tactics in football management. However this week a slightly more basic and important obligation needs to be considered, one which is fundamental to practice as a barrister.
I have a treasured memory of being allowed to stay up to watch the television and see Manchester United triumph in the European cup final in 1968. By the time of their next appearance in the final I travelled to Barcelona to watch them triumph in the Nou Camp. I would obviously therefore relish the opportunity to be in Moscow today.
That is an option which I could have taken. I have the option on a ticket and a trip by private jet to Moscow, to include transfers to the ground and a slap up dinner. (Expensive, but less than the cost of me for a day in court). Needless to say this is an opportunity I would have relished. This is particularly so because in 1999 I felt that this might be the last opportunity to watch United in the Champions League Final. Now I suspect that with the present squad there could be rather more opportunities over the next few years. However that is an added reason to want to see every final appearance, rather than a reason for not going.
However I shall not be travelling to Moscow. The reason is quite simple. I have an application listed in one of my cases. Now the reality is that it would have been relatively straightforward to get someone else to do this. However that is not the point. The question is, since this is my case and I have conduct of it, what is in the best interests of the client? The best interests of the client mandate that I ought to be attending on this application. Therefore that is the end of the story. Moscow, here we do not come.
Obviously there are occasions when you cannot represent the client. If you have a holiday or event booked, then sometimes it will be impossible to accommodate the client. I have cancelled holidays to accommodate clients but only where I felt it was reasonable to do so. If a client insists on a case being listed for a date when you are not available then that is a matter for the particular client and there is no way I would cancel a holiday. However the Court of Appeal for example will frequently list cases when you are not available. If it is something that you really ought to do having regard to the interests of the client, sometimes that can lead to you taking steps you would rather not. In my case it has involved cancelling a holiday before now, rather than see the client deprived of my representation when despite request the Court of Appeal has listed a hearing for a date when I was not available.
Today is different however. Until United made it through to the final it was not clear that I would have any interest in this day. (I would also have felt it was tempting fate to mark the date as unavailable on the assumption that United would reach the final). The case was booked before United reached the final. I am therefore committed to the case. The interests of the client must come first.
This illustrates a wider principle. I am all in favour of lawyers being businesslike and responding to the needs of consumers. However that must not be at the expense of professional standards. The law can be a business, but only a business which does not contradict the obligations appropriate to a profession. That is why I will not be travelling to Moscow.