Untrustworthy opponents

Treachery among learned friends ... Being double-crossed by one's own ... Junior Junior would rather play fair and lose the case, than foul and win it ... How honourable can you get? 

IT is said that the Bar is an honourable profession.

Us barristers are, arguably, held by the courts to an even higher standard than solicitors.

I don't know whether that is true, or just something they tell you in the bar course to make sure you do the profession proud when you are plying your business in the real world.

In any event, I do truly believe that honesty and integrity must underlie my work if for no other reason than it means my opponents in court can trust my word.

Acting against a trustworthy opponent is wonderful.

You know you can trust them to mention the matter on your behalf, by consent, when you are stuck elsewhere, or to let the court know you are there when you have stepped out briefly and your matter has been called.

Very best of all, you know that when you are working out the issues in dispute, there will be no surprise arguments on the day.

Unfortunately, I have twice appeared against untrustworthy opponents.

The first time my shock was so great, I was dumbfounded. Instead of leaping up and screaming, "Liar! You swore you wouldn't raise that," I sat in my seat stunned. 

In this particular case it was a police prosecutor - I will remember this person for the rest of my career and will not hesitate to explain to anyone dealing with them to watch out.

It's not the sort of reputation I expect anyone wants to cultivate, but you reap what you sow.

The second time I was a victim of treachery, it was still a shocking experience - but I had the presence of mind to do something about it. 

It was a more senior practitioner than myself and after agreeing issues in dispute, I was very surprised to hear him start an argument in his closing about a particular aspect that he had told me I could leave out of the "issues in dispute" document for the judge, as it wasn't in dispute. 

Luckily, after his closing - including the offending argument - I was able to respond, very coyly mentioning that my learned friend has previously agreed that that particular issue was not one in dispute.

However, having been burned previously, despite being advised the issue would not be raised, I had not cut the arguments from my personal submissions so I was able to deal with this curveball on the fly.

Afterwards, I didn't know whether to mention it to my opponent, or not.

We had not exactly become friends during the hearing, but I had not expected to be stabbed in the back either.

On this occasion, I decided that perhaps he must have forgotten that he had agreed not to raise it - so I let it go. 

By "let it go" I mean that I didn't pull him aside after court, stick my finger in his face and yell, "You dirty liar!  How dare you attempt to pull a fast one on me in court!"

Instead, I simply resolved not to trust him ever again. 

The bar is a dangerous place to get a reputation that you can't be trusted. 

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which people will go when backed into a corner. 

Still, I would rather be remembered as the opponent that ran a fair case and lost it, than the one that had to cheat to win.