Standing up for ourselves

Phil Horsfield explains why the Law Society’s upcoming consultation on a Defence Union demands engagement.

It is a curious irony that those who dedicate their careers to protecting others often find themselves least protected when professional adversity strikes. The Law Society of England and Wales, which last year marked two centuries of service, has now turned its attention to this imbalance. It is shortly beginning a discussion with the profession on establishing a Defence Union. This represents a significant moment—an invitation to reflect on what solidarity and fairness should mean within our own profession.

A Defence Union is not about additional bureaucracy; it is about strengthening the professional fabric of those who quietly sustain the rule of law.

Founding principles revisited

Since its inception in 1825, the Law Society’s founding mission has been to uphold the rule of law, to protect the independence of the profession, and to promote access to justice. Integral to these aims lies a simple but profound idea: those who defend others must themselves be defended where circumstances so require.

The Society’s upcoming consultation on a Defence Union seeks views that will give form to this mutual obligation. In any process there must be mechanisms to balance resources and opportunity. It is essential rather than extravagant or indulgent that solicitors too should possess means of representation comparable to the regulator both to protect the integrity of that process and ensure that the institutions charged with regulations are performing their role properly.

To put it plainly, equality of arms should not end at the courtroom door. It must extend to those who keep the courtroom running, who support the most vulnerable in our communities and who speak up clearly for those who need it. 

The modern practitioner’s dilemma

The pace and intensity of modern legal practice are such that few outside the profession fully appreciate the cumulative pressure exerted by regulatory demands, reputational risks, and the often labyrinthine standards of professional conduct.

Against this backdrop, the practitioner facing investigation or complaint can quickly find themselves isolated. All the evidence from those charged with supporting our profession (such as Law Care) is that this is the experience of those involved in these processes. A Defence Union would be a mechanism by which solicitors can access structured support: not only legal assistance but advocacy and professional solidarity. It is a recognition that safeguarding the individual practitioner is ultimately an act of safeguarding the profession’s integrity.

Equality of arms in practice

Critically, the Defence Union concept would not be a charity nor a privilege, but an articulation of balance. In legal terms, equality of arms does not insist upon identical resources, but on fairness of opportunity—a chance to stand on level ground. For solicitors facing complaints, disciplinary matters, or reputational threats, such parity is not a luxury but a professional necessity.

The Law Society’s consultation seeks to bring structure and predictability to what are currently piecemeal and sometimes daunting processes. It is about ensuring that no practitioner, irrespective of career stage or area of work, need navigate professional jeopardy without both expert guidance and institutional backing.

Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch once defined true courage as “when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway.” The Defence Union could convert that individual courage—so often asked of practitioners—into a shared resilience that honours the collective spirit of the profession.

The role of orofessional voice

Engagement exercises are a mainstay of professional governance, yet too often they are treated as administrative formalities. This one is not. The Law Society’s research into the feasibility of a defence union marks a genuine opportunity to shape the profession’s future protection and resilience through influencing a model of mutual defence that could one day serve every one of us.

Our current President reminded us all of the power of voices raised together with the London Welsh Male Voice Choir at his inauguration. Each response, whether supportive or cautious, will form part of the Society’s mandate to proceed (or not proceed) with confidence. Silence, by contrast, will be read as quiet assent or quiet indifference, and either interpretation would risk misrepresenting the profession’s true sentiment.

There will always be a temptation to assume that “nothing will happen.” Yet that is precisely what ensures that nothing does. Professional culture can be eroded not through catastrophe, but through inertia. As Ray Bradbury once observed, “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.” Similarly, all that is required to weaken a profession’s collective protection is for its members to stop participating.

Every solicitor who chooses not to respond to the consultation still casts a silent vote—for inaction. If you favour change, it is important to speak up. If you prefer continuity, it is equally important to say so. The issue is not agreement but engagement. The act of responding, however briefly, improves any outcome.

Upholding the profession’s ethic

In the final analysis, this is less a debate about organisational form than about professional ethos. Since 1825, the Law Society has existed to uphold independence, fairness, and public trust. Those values remain vital only when they are lived.

Responding to the upcoming consultation is, therefore, an act of professional citizenship. It reflects our continuing belief that the rule of law begins with those who practise it—and that equality of arms applies not only to the client in the courtroom but to the solicitor at their desk.

As Edmund Burke memorably said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” In this quieter but no less significant context, the same holds true. Professional silence is not neutral; it is invisible.

The Law Society’s call for views is real, time‑limited, and consequential. Whether one views a Defence Union as overdue innovation or unnecessary complication, it is essential that every solicitor take a view. Because in shaping a collective defence, we are in truth defending something larger—the integrity and independence of the profession itself.

Phil Horsfield is Service Director – Legal at Rotherham Borough Council. He is also the Law Society Council member for Yorkshire and Humberside.