McIntosh and Blunkett lock horns over asylum work

Fighting talk seemed to be the order of the day at the Law Society's conference, according to press coverage of the event the following Monday, which all seemed to focus on the president's 'fierce attacks' (The Financial Times) on Home Secretary David Blunkett's recent comments about lawyers.Mr Blunkett, who 'made no secret of his anger' at the High Court's ruling earlier this month that government asylum policy breached human rights, described judicial reviews as 'a lawyer's charter', and claimed that some lawyers seeking compensation for asylum seekers were 'stirring up racial tensions'.

Law Society president David McIntosh 'launched a swift offensive' against the Home Secretary, describing his 'knee jerk' remarks as 'deplorable', 'over the top, sweeping and unfair' (The Times).

Mr Blunkett's comments were likened to his predecessor Jack Straw's vituperative attacks on the 'fat cat' criminal lawyers - according to Mr McIntosh, 'Jack Straw called criminal lawyers fat cats and they are not even plump' (The Independent).

His comments 'set the scene for the looming fight between the government and the legal profession' (The Financial Times), with the president issuing something of a rallying cry - 'urging ministers to meet him at his private offices so that they could get a dialogue going', and 'wanting to dispel the myth that all solicitors do is defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent' (The Independent).

Elsewhere, the Auld report fought for space with cohabitation and gay marriages for column inches, with the Daily Telegraph whipping up the moral majority by claiming that 'Labour MPs were divided over plans to legalise gay marriage and long-term heterosexual relationships' (25 October).

Reporting the debate over the Relationships (Civil Registration) Bill, The Telegraph quoted Labour MP Stuart Bell who, presumably ignoring the one in three marriages which end in divorce, claimed that 'marriage is the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain'.

The Bill, supported by the Law Society, aims to give unmarried and same sex couples the same legal rights as married couples, and its proposer Jane Griffiths said that 'MPs had recently granted equal pension rights to unmarried partners, and so it would be an irony if we opposed this Bill today.'The Daily Mail also got on its high horse this week, with the debate on the implications of the Auld report continuing to rumble on.

David Blunkett's declaration in light of the report that it will become 'very much harder for the middle classes to wriggle out of jury service' was welcomed as 'excellent news for both justice and democracy' (26 October).

Trevor Grove, author of 'The juryman's tale', said that jury selection was 'a scandal', and asked 'why on earth should the articulate middle classes, merely pleading a pre-booked holiday, opt out of a system that does so much for them?' He claimed that jury service was 'a duty to society, an opportunity for education and wide experience, and also enviable privilege'.And finally, a pertinent question from Simon Carr writing in The Independent (29 October): 'Who do we hate more, lawyers or politicians?' While admitting the similarities between the two professions - 'both lawyers and politicians rob graves and dine on human remains' - he concluded that lawyers are hated because of 'straightforward envy' of their impressive pay packets.

He conceded, however, that they have some role in society: '"Kill all the lawyers" is, after all, the rallying cry Shakespeare gave to people who were out for a good time.' David Blunkett might well have some sympathy with that idea.Victoria MacCallum