Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Lawyers will probably never be universally admired. They were never meant to be. The profession exists to stand between power and the individual, between emotion and punishment, and between certainty and fairness. That role has always attracted suspicion, writes Tony Taouk.
Lawyers have long had a reputation problem. We are regularly portrayed as dishonest, manipulative, self-interested, or morally flexible. In popular culture, the lawyer is often the villain. In public discourse, we are frequently blamed for delay, complexity, and outcomes that feel unjust.
The instinctive professional response is to deny the caricature. But that is too easy and ultimately unconvincing. A more honest question is whether the reputation is entirely undeserved, or whether history, culture, and conduct have given the public legitimate reasons for scepticism.
The answer, uncomfortably, is both.
Public suspicion of lawyers is not a modern phenomenon. One of the most quoted lines in English literature appears in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” The line is often cited as proof that contempt for the profession is timeless. But the context matters. In Henry VI, Part 2, the line is spoken by a rebel plotting tyranny. Lawyers are not targeted because they are corrupt but because they stand in the way of arbitrary power. They represent rules, records, precedent, and restraint. They represent limits.
The law has always attracted individuals willing to use it to restrain power rather than serve it. History offers many examples of lawyers earning public respect precisely because they defended principle when doing so was unpopular.
A clear example is John Adams. Long before he became a founding figure of the United States, Adams was a conservative, establishment lawyer deeply committed to the rule of law. In 1770, he agreed to defend the British soldiers charged after the Boston Massacre, despite intense public hostility and the real risk to his reputation and practice. The defendants were widely reviled, and political pressure for conviction was overwhelming.
Adams’ example highlights a recurring professional paradox. Lawyers are often judged not by their fidelity to process but by the people they represent and the outcomes they enable. The lawyer who insists on legality when emotion demands certainty rarely attracts gratitude in the moment, yet that insistence is often what preserves trust in the system over time.
The same principle plays out in Australian courts every day. Lawyers who represent those accused of murder, rape, organised crime, and other serious offences are often criticised simply for doing so, even though the right to legal representation is one of the foundations of the justice system.
But even lawyers acting from principle can find themselves accused of crossing ethical boundaries when the stakes are high. Great advocates are often distinguished by conviction, persistence and a willingness to challenge prevailing opinion. Those same qualities can, if unchecked, bring them perilously close to ethical boundaries.
Clarence Darrow’s career illustrates this tension. Darrow defended labour activists, unpopular defendants, and those facing execution at a time when public sentiment demanded punishment rather than fairness. He believed the legitimacy of the legal system depended on defending even those whom society despised.
But Darrow’s career also illustrates why public distrust of lawyers is not entirely irrational. In 1912, at the height of his prominence, Darrow was charged with attempting to bribe jurors during the McNamara brothers’ trial, a politically explosive case involving union leaders accused of a fatal bombing. Darrow denied the allegations and was ultimately acquitted, but the episode nearly destroyed him professionally. It remains instructive because it shows how thin the line can become when advocacy operates under intense moral and political pressure.
If Darrow represents the profession at its most conflicted, Roy Cohn represents it at its most damaging. As counsel to Senator Joseph McCarthy, Cohn helped weaponise legal process and accusation to destroy reputations without proof or procedural fairness. Later, as a private lawyer, he embraced intimidation, dishonesty, and procedural aggression as professional tools. His eventual disbarment confirmed a public fear that legal skill divorced from principle can become a tool of domination rather than restraint.
Australia has its own modern cautionary example. Nicola Gobbo, publicly known as Lawyer X, was a criminal defence lawyer who secretly acted as a police informer against her own clients. Her conduct violated the most fundamental duties of loyalty and confidentiality. The consequences were systemic. Convictions were overturned, compensation claims followed, and confidence in the criminal justice system was shaken. This was not merely a personal failure; it was a systemic failure that inflicted a reputational wound on the profession itself.
These examples matter because they explain why the public often distrusts lawyers instinctively. When lawyers misuse their skills, the breach feels deeper than ordinary misconduct. Lawyers understand the rules. When they exploit that understanding improperly, it feels like betrayal rather than error.
Popular culture reinforces this instinct. Film and television did not invent distrust of lawyers, but they have made it vivid and permanent.
Negative portrayals dominate because they dramatise a real fear: that intelligence and technical skill can be exercised without conscience. In The Devil’s Advocate, the lawyer villain is literally the embodiment of evil. In Primal Fear, truth and deception become almost indistinguishable, and the legal system is manipulated through performance.
Positive portrayals exist, but they are harder to dramatise. Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird is admired not because he wins but because he insists on fairness in a case he knows is unlikely to be won. In A Few Good Men, the lawyer succeeds only when he abandons convenience and insists on pursuing the truth.
Television tells the same story. Better Call Saul explores how good intentions can erode under professional pressure. Villains are vivid. Ethical lawyers are incremental, cautious and often unsatisfying as characters even though they are closer to reality.
These portrayals shape expectations. When lawyers advise against emotionally satisfying courses, lose cases honourably or prioritise process over spectacle, they appear weak or complicit rather than principled. Advocacy is mistaken for dishonesty. Restraint is mistaken for indifference.
The profession’s reputational challenges have become more acute in the digital age. Clients increasingly share experiences publicly, often reducing complex legal disputes to simple narratives of success or failure. Social media rewards certainty and outrage, while legal practice frequently requires nuance, caution and uncomfortable advice. At the same time, high-profile scandals such as Lawyer X have reinforced public concerns about ethics and accountability. Lawyers today operate in an environment where trust in institutions generally is declining, making professional credibility harder to earn and easier to lose.
At the same time, much of the profession’s most valuable work remains invisible. Criminal defence lawyers insisting on due process when public sentiment demands punishment. Commercial lawyers advising clients not to proceed when legality and expedience diverge. Litigators resolving disputes quietly before they escalate. Success in these contexts often looks like nothing happening at all. A wrongful conviction avoided. A bad decision never made.
So, do lawyers deserve their bad reputation?
The honest answer is that parts of it have been earned. History provides real examples of lawyers abusing power, betraying trust, and damaging institutions. To deny that is to invite further scepticism.
But the caricature is incomplete. It ignores the structural reality that lawyers operate where stakes are high, emotions are raw, and power is uneven. It ignores that the profession’s core function is to restrain outcomes that feel emotionally satisfying but are legally dangerous. And it ignores that many of the most important legal victories are invisible precisely because they prevent harm rather than dramatise it.
Lawyers will probably never be universally admired. They were never meant to be. The profession exists to stand between power and the individual, between emotion and punishment, and between certainty and fairness. That role has always attracted suspicion.
The question is not whether lawyers are always worthy of public trust. History shows they are not. The real question is whether a free society can function without people willing to defend due process, challenge power, and insist that rules apply equally to the popular and unpopular alike. Whatever lawyers’ faults, history suggests that societies suffer more from the absence of lawyers than from their imperfections.
Tony Taouk is the principal of Magna Carta Lawyers.
