No matter how familiar it is from news broadcasts and Hollywood, the marble palace that houses the Supreme Court of the United States of America never fails to take the breath away. It makes our own Supreme Court’s premises, in the old Middlesex Guildhall, look like a high street bank.
Making such an impression was in the forefront of chief justice William Howard Taft’s mind when, in the 1920s, he argued successfully for the court to have its own building, separate from the Capitol where it had previously been housed.
The court’s power, of course, is enshrined in Article III of the US constitution, which places it alongside the executive and the legislature as an arm of government. Last week, the current chief justice, John Roberts, was able to cite that separation of powers when he ‘respectfully declined’ an invitation to appear before the Senate’s justice committee, which is examining allegations involving Justice Clarence Thomas (who denies any impropriety).
While the ability to proudly flaunt the court’s privilege may have been convenient in this particular case, a valuable point of principle is involved. For all the shortcomings of the US legal system – starting with the extortionate cost of justice – it is still one that can boast a golden thread of independence. This was illustrated several times at last week’s Washington DC conference jointly organised by the Law Society and the US Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers.
It is striking, for example, that the US legal profession has – so far – managed to avoid being caught under the umbrella of mandatory anti-money laundering reporting, on the grounds of client confidentiality. And it would be unthinkable in the US for a government-created legal regulator to try and lay down rules on which clients are worthy of legal representation – as the Legal Services Board appears to be considering on the issues of non-disclosure agreements and SLAPPs.
There are two types of country in the world: those where the government can tell lawyers what their ethical responsibilities are and those that cannot. The US, for all the faults of its justice system, is still firmly in the latter camp. The UK should be, too.
No comments yet