Television and film directors are welcoming the input of lawyers in providing the ring of authenticity to their plots and scripts. Philip Hoult goes behind the scenes of ‘Vera Drake’

Reviewing ‘Vera Drake’ – the Mike Leigh film about a backstreet abortionist in the 1950s that opened the London Film Festival last month – the Hollywood Reporter said how ‘it’s difficult to think of another recent film… that envelops an audience so completely in its period authenticity’.


For that, thanks must go in small part to Jeffrey Gordon, a 70-year-old consultant at London criminal law firm Attridge Law.


When Mr Leigh’s company, Thin Man Films, started work on ‘Vera Drake’, it decided it needed someone with knowledge of the criminal courts at the time. Although Mr Gordon had not advised on a film before, he jumped at the chance.


One of his tasks was to allow the actor playing Vera Drake’s solicitor to shadow him in court. ‘I explained to him the foibles of being a solicitor in 1951, talking to him about how things were different then,’ explains Mr Gordon, who also briefed other cast members.


As with other Mike Leigh films, the script was ad libbed and rehearsed before a full transcript was run up. However, Mr Gordon was asked to write the defence counsel’s speech – something that did not faze him. ‘I write scripts every day in court – it is very creative,’ he explains. ‘It came out how I expected it to come out.’


Screen test: Mike Leigh directs actor Jim Broadbent in ‘Vera Drake’, for which legal advice was needed to recreate courts in the 1950sMr Gordon was also asked, along with a former policeman, to advise on Ms Drake’s arrest, as well as scenes in the magistrates’ court and the Old Bailey – something that required him on set.

‘They used the old Thames Magistrates’ Court, which has been closed for a number of years,’ he says. ‘I was quite moved when I went on the set as the solicitor looked right, the members of the public looked right and even the magistrate looked like someone who was a magistrate in 1951.’


The Old Bailey does not allow filming, so those scenes had to be shot at the old Crown Court in Kingston upon Thames, Surrey. ‘You do not see much in the courts but what you do see has a feeling of authenticity,’ says Mr Gordon, who even advised on non-legal areas of the film. ‘There is a brief scene in a dance hall and I was able to give them my knowledge on that,’ he explains.


Mr Gordon is not the first lawyer to have advised on the contents of a film or television programme. David Etherington QC, a criminal law barrister at 18 Red Lion Court, London, has quite a pedigree in the area – having advised on the likes of ‘Kavanagh QC’, ‘Judge John Deed’, and ‘The Brief’. ‘It is great fun, but it does not pay very well,’ he admits.


For the likes of ‘Kavanagh’ and ‘The Brief’, Mr Etherington’s involvement starts with a brainstorming session with the executive producers, who ask him what is going on in the courts at the time. The production team will then run a basic premise for an episode by him, because they do not want to go to the expense of commissioning a script if he is going to say it is legally wrong.


A plot summary, followed by a first draft of the script, then arrive on his desk. ‘I send back a list of the major howlers, and a list of other things I would prefer to be different,’ he explains.


First things to go are American expressions such as ‘I object’, while the judge’s language – particularly to the jury – will often be changed to the more informal style of an English court.


However, there are some instances where Mr Etherington recognises that, for dramatic purposes, it can pay to play around with the correct procedure – for example, when putting the defence case it is technically wrong, but dramatically more powerful, to put forward evidence first and call the defendant last.


Mr Etherington will also provide input if a scriptwriter is struggling with a speech by counsel. ‘I tell them what I would say and they can use that as a basis,’ he says.


Like Mr Gordon, he is extremely impressed with the dedication shown by the production teams, particularly the researchers and the costume staff. But that can sometimes stretch too far.


‘The Brief’: brainstorming session‘I went on the ‘Kavanagh’ set once and it looked perfect,’ he recalls. ‘That was what was wrong – the courtroom was too perfect. [The reality is that] a court is messy, with Post-it notes and tubes of mints everywhere.’ As a result, a member of the production team was dispatched to buy mints.

Mr Etherington’s favourite programme was a ‘Kavanagh’ episode about a daughter accused of murder. It became apparent to the viewer – but not the court – that she was innocent and it was her father who had committed the crime.


Originally, the producers had assumed she would be found not guilty. ‘I said that, on the evidence, she would never have got off,’ he relates. ‘I told them that there would be an appeal and that the Court of Appeal would then affirm the conviction if the father said he did it [without any evidence].’ This took the producers aback, but they then realised the dramatic potential of the storyline.


The main reason, of course, why producers like to have a lawyer on board is to give the legal content that all-important tag of authenticity. The question is: does it matter that it is legally accurate?


Yes, according to Roger Ede, international projects manager at the Law Society and ex-secretary of its criminal law committee. ‘Most people learn [about the legal system] through programmes like these,’ he says. ‘They know programme-makers do research. They think that if the script-writers have chosen to include it, then it must be right.’


Mr Ede advised on the famous episodes of ‘The Archers’, where Susan Carter helped her brother escape from a prison van and was subsequently charged with assisting an offender. He was specifically asked to re-write the judge’s speech and recommended a prison sentence of six months.



The sentencing caused a press furore, leading to a ‘Free Susan Carter’ campaign. The then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, said he was appalled and claimed that having worked as a recorder, he would have given her a community sentence – prompting Mr Ede to defend his position in The Times.



‘The producers are keen to get it right in terms of accuracy,’ he says. ‘One of the problems is the time-scale. They want to know what is realistic but also what is possible in a radio drama.’


Daniel Oudkerk, an employment law barrister at 11 King’s Bench Walk, London, and adviser on former BBC young lawyer drama ‘This Life’, acknowledges that ‘sometimes they [the script-writers] take notice, sometimes they don’t’.


‘My own view is that it is always important to get the legal content right, not least because friends and colleagues will raise issues with you,’ he says. ‘But “This Life” was not pretending to be a straight legal drama. The writers had a fair amount of licence and I would not criticise them for that – I suspect that the programme was better for it.’


Occasionally, the boot is on the other foot. Mr Etherington was once asked by a director whether a judge would pour water from his carafe while a witness was talking – he replied that the director could do what he liked. Later, one of the actors, Ian Richardson, took him to one side. ‘He cautioned me that as I was doubtless there at great expense, I should always give them an answer,’ Mr Etherington explains.


A few seconds later another daft question was posed – if a witness came into the court, did the usher or the witness close the door or did it close itself?


‘I asked which court at the Old Bailey we were supposed to be. “Court 1”, came the reply. “Ah,” I said, “in that case the witness shuts the door herself.”’ Cue a big wink from Mr Richardson.


Apart from being an enjoyable diversion from the day job, advising on a programme can have unexpected perks.


Hunter Gray, a solicitor-advocate at criminal law firm Tuckers, in London, advised on BBC3’s new comedy drama ‘Outlaws’ about criminal defence solicitors. He went over scripts, attended read-throughs with the actors and took them to see the courts in action.


Although he is not named in the credits, in one episode a rival firm to the main protagonists’ is given the name Hunter & Gray.



The pay may not be great, but that’s something to tell the grandchildren.