Lots of lawyers played their part in the furore surrounding the release of the Hutton report last week, from the Kelly family's solicitor - Peter Jacobsen of Westminster firm Bircham Dyson Bell - to Martin Smith, the Clifford Chance lawyer tasked by Lord Hutton with investigating what action could be taken over the leak to the Sun.

But - perhaps because of what was perceived as a surprising lack of criticism of the government - Lord Hutton himself was especially under scrutiny.

The Times asked several eminent barristers whether a judge should have been appointed to chair an inquiry that required knowledge of the workings of government as well as requiring value judgements on the social responsibilities of the media (29 January).

David Pannick QC said he did not blame Lord Hutton, 'but I think it is fundamentally flawed for a judge to be asked to pass judgment on whether the BBC complied with its responsibilities'.

Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC added: 'This may be the classic instance of why we should question the public's ready acceptance of asking a senior judge to hold a public inquiry.'

However others, such as Bar Council chairman Stephen Irwin QC and Jonathan Caplan QC were more forgiving, and praised the way Lord Hutton conducted the inquiry.

Support also came from two other peers who have chaired high-profile inquiries.

Scotland's most senior judge and veteran inquiry chairman, Lord Cullen, told BBC News Online that the conduct of the Hutton inquiry 'reflected great credit' on the legal world (27 January).

He said: 'So frequently one hears that judges are elderly and out of touch, but when something important comes along, where some inquiry is necessary, it is to the judges that the executive turns.'

Meanwhile, Lord Laming, the non-lawyer who chaired the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbi, recalled the pressures of being in such a high-profile position, and how he lived a 'monk-like existence' before the report was published (Guardian, 2 February).

'I did not want to be seen in any circumstance, albeit entirely innocent, that could give rise to rumour or claim that I was being influenced by anything other than the evidence,' he explained.

Referring to the huge challenge of chairing these inquiries, he added: 'I suggest there is something to be said for developing the means to identify potential candidates - drawn from the judiciary and other walks of life - to undertake this work and to offer them some specialist training.

It is too late to do that when the inquiry has been announced and there is pressure to complete the task in a timely fashion.'

Elsewhere, Robert Kilroy-Silk added legal aid lawyers to his list of btes noires (Sunday Express, 1 February), with his outrage over the news that the government plans to withdraw legal aid for motoring offences (see [2004] Gazette, 29 January, 10).

So, with the government saying it wants to ensure the money goes to those who need it, Mr Kilroy-Silk wondered where it will actually end up.

'Pensioners, the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill? Don't be silly.

It will go to the feckless and undeserving.

Or it will be doled out in hundreds of millions to bogus asylum-seekers to pay their legal aid bills so that their human rights are protected.'

And he finished plaintively: 'Don't British taxpayers have any human rights any more?'

Finally, The Observer reported how 'lawyers sense bonanza ahead in discrimination actions' in an article that effectively profiled City employment solicitors Corinne Aldridge and Helen Parker.

They set up their own practice at the end of last year 'specifically to catch the rising tide of claims' brought in the City by disgruntled bankers, brokers and traders.

So why did they leave City firm Bird & Bird last year - 'apart from that firm's unfortunate name'?

Partly, Ms Parker said, because the work is not valued highly enough by big City law firms.

In a quote that may embarrass a few of her former colleagues, she explained: 'Last year, employment was one of the best performing departments at Bird & Bird.

But we couldn't reward our staff because the departments engaged in corporate work hadn't done so well.'

Neil Rose