The brutal murder of Rosemary Nelson illustrates the potential dangers of a common misconception about lawyers: a lawyer representing a client must necessarily agree with and support all the client's opinions and actions.

One can see how this could arise in a sectarian society.

But the description of Ms Nelson as a 'republican lawyer' ignores the fact that she acted for Protestant clients with equal skill and determination.Even outside Northern Ireland, it is easy to understand why the public associates the lawyer with the client.

There is something inherently dishonest about advocacy.

We are all careful to say 'I suggest' rather than 'I believe' when making submissions on behalf of a client.

However, within these restraints, successful advocates will inevitably convey a subtle and non-verbal message to a jury that they actually believe what they are being paid to say.Another reason for the misconception is that solicitors and barristers are becoming more involved in dealing with the media on behalf of clients.

While it is understandable that clients would prefer lawyers to field press enquiries, such media appearances reinforce the impression in the public mind that clients and their lawyers are indistinguishable.So what is the only real protection that lawyers have against the charge that by acting for a client they must agree with that client's views? It is of course the much maligned 'cab rank' rule which applies to barristers and, in a modified form, to solicitor-advocates.

Regrettably, there are far too many lawyers flouting that rule and cherry-picking cases which appeal to their personal convictions, refusing those - on spurious grounds - which might damage the image that they are careful to present to the outside word.

Their justification is that there are plenty of other lawyers prepared to take on the defence of say, alleged rapists, racists or child murderers.Whether that is true or not, the reality is that such a practice is the thin end of the wedge.

Once it is perceived that a lawyer can easily evade the cab rank rule, the inevitable corollary is the perception in the public mind that a lawyer who takes on a case must be less detached than, say, a surgeon operating on a patient.There will always be the view that the lawyer must have some persona l sympathy or empathy for the client.

In the increasingly highly charged atmosphere that surrounds many high profile cases, it is easy to see how this exposes a lawyer to personal risk.The problem has been exacerbated by the attitude towards lawyers in certain sections of the print and broadcast media.

For example, Cherie Booth QC was attacked in print for acting for local authorities against poll tax defaulters.

More recently, an article on the recent judgment by the European Commission on Human Rights at the trial of the two boys convicted of James Bulger's murder, was headed 'Why are lawyers exploiting this tragedy?' And this on the same day that the newspaper reported Ms Nelson's death.In the present climate of 'lawyer bashing' in the media, consideration should be given by the Law Society and the Bar Council to financially supporting lawyers who have been unjustly defamed by an attack on their personal integrity when taking on an unpopular cause.

Other professional organisations and trades unions support their members in this way, recognising that it advances the interests of all members.The appalling murder of Rosemary Nelson serves as a demonstration that we all have a duty to fight for the independence of the profession and to act fearlessly for any client, without concern for the personal consequences.

Characterising lawyers who do so as 'radical' is trite and inaccurate, and simply allows misconceptions to persist.

We should all be such radical lawyers.

If we were, it would be difficult to accuse lawyers of personal involvement and support, simply by virtue of the nature of their work.

Furthermore, there could be no perceived benefit in harassing or attacking a lawyer, since it would be known that there would always be someone else to take up the cudgels.