The saviour of celebrity motorists, the scourge of the police... Nick Freeman has established himself as a top criminal defence lawyer. Philip Hoult finds out the key to Mr Loophole’s success

The first thing you notice on entering the offices of Freeman & Co is the collection of framed newspaper cuttings that covers the walls. Nick Freeman – aka ‘Mr Loophole’ to the tabloids, following a string of court successes for celebrities charged with road traffic offences – is no shrinking violet.


Happily posing for photos in his high-performance Mercedes Kleemann convertible, and with a Bentley at home, he clearly enjoys the financial rewards of his work.


At a time when most criminal defence solicitors are scratching around to earn a living, just how did a Manchester-based sole practitioner become one of the best known – and reputedly highest paid – lawyers in the country?


Mr Freeman’s father was in retail, but warned him there would not be a business for him to take over. Although harbouring ambitions to become a professional golfer, he was persuaded to study law. A degree at what was Trent Polytechnic was followed by law school at the College of Law in Chester.


He did his articles with a firm in Nottingham, a period he described as ‘a complete waste of two years’. However, events took a significant turn when he was entered for an advocacy competition for articled clerks in the midlands city.


Until then, he had not expected to practise criminal law. ‘At the time, I wanted to be a commercial lawyer,’ he says. ‘I thought I would make a good living. I also did not have the confidence and did not want the stress of being in court. But I entered the competition and got a buzz out of it.’


Mr Freeman joined Greater Manchester Police as a prosecutor in 1981, and it was there that he first handled significant numbers of road-traffic cases. ‘I appreciated that it is an area rich in legal argument, so I invested time in learning it,’ he says. ‘When I prosecuted, I enjoyed the adversarial challenge – it is [still] what appeals to me.’


He joined a Manchester defence firm in June 1983 and took equity that October, remaining there until he set up Freeman & Co in June 1999.


‘In the last six years [at his previous firm] I had been running a practice within a practice – [the firm] did virtually all legal aid work, and more and more of my work was privately funded,’ he explains. ‘This was slightly unhealthy. It is very hard to draw up a formula that satisfies different partners.’


Mr Freeman had already worked for some celebrity clients before striking out on his own. But what really made people, and the tabloid press, take notice was his work for footballer David Beckham and Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson in 1999.


Mr Beckham was convicted of speeding by magistrates and disqualified for eight months. But his agent, Tony Stephens, insisted Mr Freeman represent him on an appeal. ‘I had never done the advocacy in a Crown Court case before but Tony said, “no, you are doing it”,’ Mr Freeman explains. ‘Had I still been at my previous firm, I have no doubt that I would have got counsel in. But I said, “face your fears and get on and do it”. It was a tremendous opportunity.’


Mr Beckham lost the appeal against the conviction but the judge ruled against taking away his licence, accepting his explanation that he was escaping paparazzi.


Mr Freeman had already secured the acquittal of Sir Alex on a charge of illegally using the hard shoulder of a motorway – Sir Alex had urgently needed the lavatory – and the two cases sealed his reputation.


From there, his practice took off. The list of celebrity clients particularly from the worlds of sport and the media, continues to grow.


Mr Freeman is unsurprisingly reluctant to divulge the technicalities, or ‘loopholes’, he uses to win acquittals. But he acknowledges that he often benefits from mistakes made by the police in a complicated and technical area of law.


If any criticism is to be made, then arguably it should be directed at the police. Following another humiliating reverse at his hands last autumn, Greater Manchester Police – his old employer – reportedly vowed to assign greater resources and more senior officers to such cases.


But Mr Freeman’s work continues to attract controversy. The day before this interview, he had been at a magistrates’ court in Northumberland acting for Lee Bowyer. After negotiations with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Newcastle United midfielder pleaded guilty to driving at 99mph on the A1. He was banned for 42 days and fined £650.


This was portrayed as another resounding success, not least because the CPS had initially alleged that Mr Bowyer had been driving at an average 112mph, peaking at 132mph. It prompted a furious response from road safety charity Brake.


However, Mr Freeman does not see it as a triumph. He had, he says, identified flaws in the police’s case and had not had the opportunity to put them to the court. ‘It was like I had prepared for an exam, and not been allowed to sit it,’ he says. ‘But I act only in the client’s best interests. From my point of view, a good result would have been to get him off.’


It was Mr Freeman’s comment that driving at 99mph was ‘not of the most serious nature’ which added fuel to the fire. However, he is keen to put this remark in context.


‘In the overall scheme of things, 99mph on a deserted road in perfect conditions in a car capable of doing 200 mph is not that serious,’ he insists. ‘What is more dangerous – 99mph in a car that’s capable of travelling [more than twice] that speed in perfect road traffic conditions and which can stop on a sixpence, or travelling within the 30mph limit in bad weather in a heavily congested urban area?’


The 70mph limit for motorways has not changed since the 1960s – it was supposedly based on the top speed of a typical new car in those days, the Ford Anglia – and that is not fast enough, Mr Freeman claims. But ‘for urban areas, limits should be reduced and vigorously enforced’, he suggests.


A frequent criticism thrown at him is that he is the classic hired-gun lawyer. How, for example, would he feel if a member of his family had been hit by a speeding driver or someone over the alcohol limit?


‘I would be horrified, like any other human being,’ he says. ‘I would probably feel worse than most people – I am more acutely aware of the consequences and ramifications.’


Mr Freeman says he does not drink and drive, he drives responsibly and he tries to ensure his family drives responsibly. ‘I completely [abhor] people who drink and drive and who drive like idiots,’ he says. ‘But as a lawyer I look at the case objectively and professionally. I am a lawyer and this is what I do – I don’t have any difficulty at all in reconciling the two.’


Another brickbat thrown his way is that it is ‘one rule for the rich and one for the poor’ – after all, being represented by him does not come cheap. Again, Mr Freeman has an answer. Showing typically innovative thinking, he launched Freeman Keep on Driving – a national legal service ‘dedicated to supporting private and business motorists for whom the loss of a driving licence could have devastating consequences’ – earlier this year.


For £49 a year, members can get immediate advice from a qualified lawyer that he has trained. They will, however, have to pay for any subsequent representation.


‘I was fed up with people saying that it is all very well if someone can afford my fees but what about the man on the street,’ he says. ‘It’s an identical service [to Freeman & Co]… but it is not me doing the advocacy and it is a lot less expensive.’


There is more to Mr Freeman’s caseload than his work for celebrities – for example, he still handles legal aid work and is on the Legal Services Commission’s specialist fraud panel. He hopes to keep doing this whatever Lord Carter eventually proposes in his review of legal aid procurement.


But it is as ‘Mr Loophole’ that he is likely to stay in the limelight. He acknowledges that the nickname is a double-edged sword.


‘Without question, there’s a certain amount of resistance,’ he admits. ‘Some people cannot divorce themselves from the thought that this is the guy who gets people off, so [they think] “let’s see what we can do to prevent it happening”. However, you always hope that magistrates will listen to the evidence and be impartial. And it cuts both ways – some people might be in favour.’


The coverage of his work for Mr Bowyer – the Daily Sport put it on its front page, while other red-tops also devoted significant space to it – means that he is likely to remain the first port of call for celebrities and others.


Whatever space there is left on Freeman & Co’s walls is likely to be filled very soon.