How journalists' eyes lit up when they were invited to a briefing at the Law Society with a delegation of US lawyers visiting the UK, mainly because Supreme Court judge Stephen Breyer would be on the panel. A front-page splash about Guantanamo Bay/Belmarsh was but a few juicy quotes away. The US lawyers - including various bigwigs from the American Bar Association (ABA) - came well prepared, however, pointing out that they (by whom they really meant Justice Breyer) would only answer questions relating to the purpose of their visit, which was to discuss international dispute resolution. Her Majesty's press corps would not be put off, of course, and managed to get straight down to business by asking about whether the US Supreme Court would take foreign rulings into account when making its own decisions, such as, to take one entirely random example, the House of Lords' recent decision on the Belmarsh detainees. Justice Breyer replied that he, of course, would take note of such rulings, but would not be bound by them, and gently declined to add any more meat to those very bare bones, however many different ways the same basic question was asked. ABA president Robert Grey did eventually crack slightly when, after considerable flannel, he conceded that 'to suggest we disagree [with the treatment of so-called enemy combatants] is probably fair statement' - hardly front-page news for the broadsheets. Further probes about the 'compensation culture', contingency fees, the proposed UK supreme court and judicial appointments were met with equally dead bats, and just as the assembled hacks were scratching their heads in an effort to provoke something to use, Chancery Lane's extremely loud and efficient fire alarm went off, bringing a premature close to the event. 'That'll teach you not to keep on the subject,' one of the US lawyers said, waving a finger at the defeated inquisitors.