Friday 5 October 2007

Being a Television Lawyer


Part of this article appears in the Circuiteer October 2007
Written in February 2007


For Sophia Cannon, family barrister and family law expert on ITV’s ‘This Morning’ , the Bar and the media are two complementary aspects of her career. She describes here how it happened, how it works and what occurs when you’re recognised in Sainsbury’s.



All the world's a stage? Being a television lawyer you are reminded of that phrase often. Of course, most English lawyers on television are fictional. And it does not help that all the famous ones are the traditional types: older, whiter, and male. The only female lawyer the production company could name is the comedic, elfin Ally McBeal. Looking to the examples, I was definitely on my own.

I was reminded constantly that you are not an actor playing a lawyer but informing the public about the law as a lawyer. Accordingly, it is your experience and personality that is what the public want to see. There is a role to play for the television lawyer however. Half of it is to demystify the profession; the other half is to demystify the law for the audience at home. Family law in particular normally operates behind closed doors so that no one can be told the facts of the case. This adds to the mystification. Inroads have been made, and it is hoped that this will lead to the ability of people to take their own lessons from child law.

How it started

This unusual career started as an approach from a researcher who saw me forcefully advising a client during a High Court case. The young researcher was investigating the clamour for openness in family courts, the rise in ‘families at war’ and campaigning based upon gender lines, rights for fathers, rights for mothers and--often sidelined though--the rights or the former rights for children. I was not blissfully thinking about my Bar career. I was advising a client who had lost his child through the criminal intervention of his erstwhile partner. He was behaving terribly, but with reason. It is a problem, thankfully now being addressed with extensive renovations, due to the lack of proper privacy at the Victorian Royal Courts of Justice--advice, in the most private of cases, has to delivered in public corridors. The researcher stated that I had a down-to-earth manner that would be ideal for television. I took the card but offered her a traditional barrister to undertake the role. She returned a year later stating that traditional barristers are part of the problem of mystifying the profession. This time I relented.

The other issue for the television I found is the didactic use of the law. Major paradigm shifts in human behaviour are often facilitated by the legislature and enforced by the judiciary. Chastising one's wife was once acceptable and legal, but now domestic violence is illegal and objectionable. As a lawyer, how the law applies in the home or upon the sofa, is what the ordinary bloke wants to know, in a manner which they can understand and apply.

Court vs. sofa TV

My specialism of family law is at place with sofa television in the mornings. The process of live television is surprisingly similar to the court arena. I am certain that most judges would not mind being compared to a sofa chat show host. However your function is to inform them of the situation, in a fluid, lucid manner, with reference to the facts and the people involved, and as quickly and succinctly as possible. In court there is your client, on television the audience. The medium of the camera is different to your tribunal. The raised eyebrow is the feedback for an unattractive submission. Your postbag is the equivalent and due to the Internet, is instantaneous. The researchers field the calls and inform you generally about the nature of the question or the problem. Then it is up to you. There is the idea that in court you are intimate with your tribunal. Contrast that with the glare of the world when on live television. Your malapropisms, grammatical errors are captured, beamed out and recorded forever on live television; you remain grateful for a High Court judge's dressing down with your sympathetic colleagues as audience.

The problem arises however with the onset of technology is that members of the public confuse your role. Once I appeared on television in the morning and in court in the afternoon; the client was amazed to the point of speechlessness. I remind them of the Bar Council guidelines that television is entertainment and that his case is the real thing. Some members of the public have recourse to ‘Googling’ you and calling the clerks to continue the debate in chambers. The client always comes first, however, and the Bar Council are helpful to reiterate the principle to those who have media careers what you say to your client and what you say to the audience.

As a barrister, in my opinion you cannot sympathise but you must empathise in order to best represent and advocate for your client. Barristers address audiences of one client and change their language accordingly because they can see how the client is reacting.

It is very different to explain to a camera--I receive a post-bag with comments--heartfelt comments that the viewer thought that they themselves were going through this alone.

Being a real barrister

From playing the Archangel Gabriel in a nativity play, I have acted as an advisor for the BBC, ITV and Channel Four, often uncredited. I can say with gratitude to the Bar Vocational Course, some years later, that simple tasks in advocacy, presentation and projection in the bowels of the School of Law were very useful to the television. You become aware that as a lawyer other professionals, also require demystification of the professions. The small questions such as, ‘Are you a real barrister?’ in response to the removal of wigs and gowns are often asked by the researchers and the viewers.

I note that part of the argument for the retention of wigs and gowns is the element of protection for the Bar from the public. The funniest thing was being recognised in Sainsbury’s. Another justification is that the older barristers look younger and the younger older. I recall part of my post-bag devoted to my appearance, my clothes, and my make up. Therefore, in Sainsbury’s, in tracksuit bottoms, my checkout girl recognised me. She gleefully, told the queue and stated that I looked ‘younger’ and ‘rougher’ but sounded posh. Humiliation apart, I recalled that from that I had people asking the most basic of questions relating to the law and the process. This led to my blog (The Paramount Principle) and my own personal openness to the Bar. There are dangerous downsides though that remind you of the necessity for the lack of direct access to the Bar, that wigs and gowns no longer protect you in the twenty-first century.

No comments: