LAW Society members are worried about their image, following the refusal by some 18 solicitors' firms to accept, or having accepted to continue with, instructions from Martin Lee and Szeto Wah in their proposed libel actions against Simon Li. The issue, however, is less that of our image and more that of freedom under the law. But the situation is complex and difficult. Solicitors must be able to have a discretion whether to accept or refuse acting for prospective clients. And without having to give reasons. Yet, on the other hand, the refusal of instructions by so many firms in the one case, with the provision of a variety of excuses, comes near to a denial of the right of representation. There may have been, and probably were, valid reasons for refusal here - for example, conflict of interest - for some of the firms. But the overall impression is that firms were apprehensive of the political context. The right to representation is enshrined in the Basic Law, quite rightly. And if solicitors won't take cases for fear of offending authority, or other vested interests, where is the reality of freedom under the law? As, or even more, important than voting procedures is that the rule of law should be paramount. That requires not only a fearless and independent judiciary, but also a fearless and independent legal profession. To quote Lord Denning ''be a man ever so high, the law is above him''. Finally let me encourage the faint-hearted somewhat. I have had long contacts with, and good friends among, the mainland people and their authorities. Provided one is balanced, and understanding of their points of view, I have never found that a reasonable adherence to one's own principles produces a vindictive reaction. Indeed, rather the contrary. They may have short-term uses for those who are obsequious, but not much respect for them, or faith in their reliability. JOHN BARTON Legal spokesman for the HK Democratic Foundation
