To what extent should personal convictions trump professional duties when representing clients?

At a time when law firms are being called out for their work advising fossil fuel emitters and targeted by US President Donald Trump for helping his political opponents, age-old ethical questions about legal representation have never been more relevant.

These issues were the focus of a lively panel discussion at the London International Disputes Week (LIDW) main conference at the QEII Centre in Westminster on Tuesday (3 June).

The debate examined the cab rank rule, which applies to barristers and mandates advocates to represent clients regardless of their personal views. Professor Joan Loughrey, head of the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast and a leading academic in corporate law and governance, described it as a cornerstone of the rule of law, particularly in criminal defence cases.

In 2023, more than 100 lawyers, including several KCs, signed a “Declaration of Conscience” pledging not to act for new fossil fuel projects or prosecute climate activists, raising concerns about potential breaches of the cab rank rule. 

The Bar Standards Board confirmed that signing the declaration alone did not breach the rule, but warned that refusing instructions on those grounds could lead to disciplinary action.

The former Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk KC, who joined Jones Day as a partner in January 2025, told the conference: “There’s an argument that says that the legal profession should speak as one and say, where those two [freedom of conscience and access to justice] come into tension, the one that wins out... is access to justice.”

He asked: “Is there nuance about whether lawyers should choose to represent that big polluting corporate based on their own personal views, or should they simply perform their professional duty and represent them? Doesn’t an arms manufacturer, for example, have the right to legal advice?”

Loughrey replied: “I’m not aware that arms manufacturers are having that problem.”

Hana Abas, an employment and human rights barrister at Cloisters Chambers, acknowledged that, for people entering the profession now, there is “probably a greater awareness of the extent to which there is potential conflict between professional issues and more personal convictions”.

As an employment lawyer, she was interested in the extent to which the law requires accommodation for personal and moral convictions in the workplace, and how that differs for lawyers.

“The starting point is you have the right to manifest a protected belief in the workplace,” said Abas, adding there “has to be a safety valve for conscientious objection”.

“We don’t get to pick and choose which beliefs are legally protected,” Chalk responded. “If you think people should be able to act without fear or favour, there is a price. That price is that you cannot make declarations of conscientious objection.”

Abas noted that employers were trying to “balance a solicitor’s right to manifest their views by refusing to work on a fossil fuel project, for example, with their practical rules as a business”.

Adele Falconer, general counsel EMEA at Christie’s, acknowledged the complexity of modern GC roles and emphasised the importance of maintaining professional detachment and the challenges in-house lawyers face balancing corporate interests with ethical responsibilities.

She said: “What you must do is kind of always walk around yourself with all your multiple personalities and roles and think: ‘What is my obligation here?’ And it’s definitely not a binary decision – we don’t have that luxury.”

She also underlined the value of general counsel having a voice at the top table, where legal advice can be effectively communicated and implemented, and the role of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in providing guidance and support for in-house lawyers.

James Castello, an independent arbitrator at Arbitration Chambers, felt the market was sufficiently competitive that most law firms would take on arbitration disputes unless they had an ethical conflict. However, he noted certain circumstances, such as sanctions, where clients faced challenges finding a law firm to represent them, calling it “a complicated issue”.

The panel discussed the Trump administration’s executive orders against a series of law firms, noting that they were so draconian that the targeted firms were at risk of going out of business. 

Three of the four firms that challenged the orders through the courts, rather than striking deals with the Trump administration – Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale – have already had the orders against them struck down by federal judges, who deemed them unconstitutional, while a final ruling is pending in the case of Susman Godfrey. 

Castello noted that law firms had successfully challenged the orders based on First Amendment free speech rights, but in doing so had identified themselves with their clients – “you can see down the road that presenting problems”.

The conversation also stressed the need for clear ethical guidelines in international arbitration. Castello pointed to the challenges of applying such guidelines globally, where lawyers from different jurisdictions may have varying obligations.

He pointed to the London Court of International Arbitration’s (LCIA) work to establish basic ethical standards in international arbitration, including the prohibition of concealing documents and presenting false evidence, and the importance of voluntary ethical guidelines in promoting fair and transparent practices.

The Global Legal Post is a media partner of London International Disputes Week. For more coverage, click here.