Lawyers told to strip stripes if they want public's trust

Casual newspaper readers could be forgiven for thinking that London fashion week had arrived early, as acres of newsprint were last week devoted to solicitors' sartorial sharpness.

According to a recently published Law Society booklet on dealing with the media, lawyers should 'avoid pinstripes and loud ties when appearing on television because they make the wearer look untrustworthy' (The Independent, 7 May).

Whereas 'lawyers of the old school may feel that [the pinstripe suit] carries gravitas and authority', in the eyes of the public 'it merely evokes suspicion', said the Daily Mail (8 May).

Perhaps more understandably, lawyers giving television interviews were also told to 'avoid untidy hair and dandruff on the collar' and - alarmingly - to 'wear makeup if offered it' (London Evening Standard, 7 May).

The Standard's fashion department was not wildly impressed with the sartorial advice: 'Could the Law Society be any more out of step with current fashion trends?' it asked witheringly (7 May).

'Pinstripes have never been so fashionable.' argued Dylan Jones, editor of 'men's style bible' GQ.

'The pinstripe suit is seen as untrustworthy?' he queried.

'Tell that to David Beckham.' Mr Beckham, for those not in the know, is a big fan of pinstripes, 'more than likely from his favourite designer duo Dolce & Gabbana', wrote Mr Jones.

Someone who, you would assume, has impeccable style advice close at hand is Jason McCue, civil rights and media lawyer, partner at London firm Henry Hepworth (also known as H2O), and boyfriend of 'husky-voiced television presenter and modern agony aunt Mariella Frostrup' (Daily Telegraph, 9 May).

Mr McCue, when not escorting 'his more recognisable girlfriend to film premieres and fashionable restaurants', is 'aiming his forensic fire-power at the Real IRA' by representing 20 victims of the 1998 Omagh bomb, which killed 29 people.

Although the police claim that they do not have enough evidence to bring murder charges, Mr McCue has launched a civil action against five men alleged to be leaders or members of the Real IRA, arguing that although the Real IRA is an unincorporated body 'if they can be proscribed (or banned) then they can be taken to court'.

He claims that the legal action is not aimed at 'enriching those injured or bereaved by the bombing', but more to give the families 'a voice in the judicial process, empowering them in a way never seen before'.

One group of people probably not feeling particularly empowered at the moment is asylum seekers and their solicitors, against whom the Daily Mail resumed its campaign last week after a brief hiatus.

'Legal aid bills for asylum seekers have more then doubled in just two years', it grumbled last week, reporting that the 'asylum gravy train' ran up a 'staggering' legal aid bill of 129 million last year, an 'incredible rise of 111% from 1999' (9 May).

A spokesman from the Immigration Advisory Service said 'the government are falling over backwards to try to get solicitors to deal with these cases, so they're giving them vast wodges of public money'.

With an eerie coincidence, four days later, the Mail ran a story about the 'windfall for lawyers who take on refugees' (Daily Mail, 13 May).

The paper claimed that 'law firms are being offered huge interest-free loans and guaranteed legal aid income to persuade them to take on asylum seekers as clients', but failed to mention that incentives from the Legal Services Commission (LSC) have been available for at least two months.

It highlighted the case of a newly created Soho-based practice which was given a 125,000 interest-free loan by the LSC, which also 'guaranteed to pay the practice 150,000 in the first three months alone'.

Ignoring the fairly reasonable claim of the solicitor in question, Jim O'Keefe, that 'all the LSC is trying to do is to improve the standard of people working in this area', the Mail concluded that 'once again, the taxpayer is being clobbered'.

Victoria MacCallum