Sorry seems to be the hardest word - for some

Home Secretary Jack Straw's controversial Bill seeking to remove defendants' right to opt for a jury trial in either-way offences last week left him facing allegations of misleading Parliament, according to the Daily Express, the Independent and the Financial Times.The hoo-ha arose from remarks made by Mr Straw in his opening speech for the Bill's second reading in March, when he claimed it had the 'active support' of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham.

According to the Daily Express (25 July), a letter from Lord Bingham to Mr Straw predating the speech, now in the hands of dissenting Labour MP and barrister Bob Marshall-Andrews, suggested the opposite.

Far from supporting the Bill, the letter appeared to show that Lord Bingham had concerns about proposals which would 'strip' magistrates of their discretion to take the accused circumstances into account when considering whether they should be afforded a trial by jury.A day later, The Independent and the Financial Times both picked up on the story, adding that Mr Straw was not only facing 'intense backbench pressure' over the allegations but that backbenchers were to revolt over the issue as well.

Mr Straw said the allegations were 'outrageous and incorrect'.The Times and The Sun last week took rather different approaches to the story of a solicitor told to 'stand down' from a case because she was sleeping with her male court opponent.

Under the headline 'It's Affair Trial', The Sun (26 July) quoted 'a top legal expert' who said that although he was 'sure' the two lawyers had behaved with 'total professionalism', there was always 'a danger one of them might let something slip accidentally over breakfast'.

More gravely, The Times (27 July) took the case as 'a sign' that judges were already taking account of the Human Rights Act 1998 and their statutory duty to ensure a trial is fair.Meanwhile, the Daily Telegraph (27 July) picked up on new legislation from California allowing people 'to say sorry without the risk of being presumed guilty in subsequent actions'.

US lawyer Michael Bart's support appeared to have a financial angle: 'we can get more cases to trial' if things settle more quickly, he said.

Other commentators hoped it would mean resolution through a 'sympathetic dialogue'.The perennial issue of fat-cat QCs raised its head again last week when The Guardian (31 July) got hold of an unpublished Lord Chancellor's Department report detailing comparative publicly funded earnings.

According to the paper, family and criminal QCs earn 'four times more' than headmasters and 'twice as much' as hospital consultants.Finally, one man took his failure to become a lawyer so badly that he turned to a career scouring their bins for dirt on the rich and famous, according to The Independent on 28 July amid much speculation of his possible involvement in the recent Downing Street leaks.

The alternative career choice however seemed to be paying off for Benji the Binman, or Benjamin Pell, who reportedly earned 3,375 from News International in April last year for information on James Hewitt and Jonathan Aitken.

Despite his long and illustrious alternative career, Benji came a cropper last year when he was arrested rooting about in the bins outside a Harley Street law firm.

Sue Allen