In order for Liz Truss to discharge one of her fundamental responsibilities, it is unfortunate that the lord chancellor must pit herself against elements of the press upon which her political ambitions may depend.

This should not, however, be allowed to deter her from acting in accordance with her duties, as some fear it has.

Some of the media reports concerning the High Court decision about parliament’s role in triggering article 50 represented an unprecedented attack on the judicial independence that Truss took an oath to defend. Her initial silence, followed by a statement that did the bare minimum without even referring to the coverage in question, is deeply worrying and plainly inadequate.

It was naive to think that the rule of law and judicial independence could be adequately protected by a non-lawyer with political ambitions. I suspect, however, that few would have predicted how soon the country would find itself plunged into such constitutional turmoil and how clearly the shortcomings in section 2 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 would be made manifest.

As solicitors, we all have a duty to uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice. I hope therefore that the Law Society will campaign for reform of the aforementioned provision.

Richard Edwards, solicitor-advocate, Potter Rees Dolan, Manchester