Is it Time for an Ethical Reset in the Legal Profession?

Pheobe Whitlock

On a blustery October evening at the Inn, the City of London Law Society (CLLS) convened its annual lecture against a backdrop of growing unease about professional ethics in the legal world. The setting was grand, but the question posed was direct: is it time for an ethical reset in the legal profession?

The lecture, delivered by Professor Richard Moorhead, Professor of Law and Professional Ethics at the University of Exeter and Monash University, was followed by a panel discussion chaired by Master Peter Gross, former Lord Justice of Appeal and former Treasurer of Gray’s Inn. They were joined by Stephen Kenny KC, Chair of the Bar Council’s Regulation Panel, and Julie Norris, investigations and regulatory partner at Kingsley Napley.

Professor Moorhead began with a clear premise: ethical failure is rarely the product of a few ‘bad apples.’ Instead, it emerges from ordinary professionals operating within cultures that subtly reward aggression, conformity and self-justification. Drawing heavily on the Post Office Horizon scandal, he argued that what shocked the public was not merely the scale of injustice, but the number of lawyers involved across decades, firms and seniority levels. That pattern, he suggested, pointed not to individual deviance but to systemic failure.

At the heart of the problem, Professor Moorhead argued, is what he termed ‘aggressive lawyering’, which is conduct that may be technically defensible but is ethically corrosive. Lawyers persuade themselves that what is arguable is acceptable, and that what is acceptable is justified. Over time, this mindset erodes integrity. Legal professionals begin to conflate advocacy with partisanship, and professional detachment with moral indifference.

Moorhead identified three reinforcing dynamics. First, human frailty. Lawyers, like everyone else, are prone to self-justification and moral licensing, particularly under pressure. Secondly, orthodox professional ideals such as zeal, neutrality and unaccountability can become dangerous when untethered from judgment and restraint. Thirdly, these habits embed themselves institutionally, creating what he termed ‘legality illusions’ which are narratives that appear lawful but obscure deeper ethical failures.

The Post Office cases, he argued, revealed how these dynamics operate in practice. Legal advice became shaped by what the organisation wanted to be true, rather than what was true. Evidence was framed, suppressed or rationalised. Professional independence eroded not through overt dishonesty but through incremental compromise. Similar patterns, he suggested, could be seen in other corporate scandals, from financial misconduct to the misuse of non-disclosure agreements.

The panel discussion that followed reflected both agreement and tension. Stephen Kenny KC accepted that aggressive advocacy could tip into misconduct but cautioned against wholesale reform of ethical rules. For the Bar, he argued, the principles are already clear: independence, integrity and personal responsibility. The challenge lies less in rewriting the rules and more in reinforcing ethical competence, particularly for senior practitioners who trained before formal ethics education became standard. ‘We need better drivers,’ he suggested, ‘not new rules of the road’.

Julie Norris struck a similar but solicitor-focused note. While acknowledging high-profile failures, she resisted the idea of a profession-wide crisis. Most solicitors, she argued, act ethically, and regulatory reviews have not revealed systemic abuse. The real deficit lies in training and culture. Ethics, she noted, is often treated as a compliance exercise rather than a practical skill. In environments driven by billing targets and hierarchy, junior lawyers may struggle to challenge decisions that feel wrong. Culture, not ignorance, is often the problem.

Closing the evening, Master Gross observed that while the English legal system remains globally respected, reputation cannot be taken for granted. Overzealous advocacy rarely impresses judges, he noted, and often undermines justice itself.

Throughout the discussion, it was clear that education needs reinforcement but ultimately, the evening ended without an easy answer. Whether the profession needs a reset or simply a recommitment, one message was clear. Integrity, once eroded, is far harder to rebuild than to protect.

Explore more from this edition

AGIS Report

The AGIS Report highlights a vibrant year of community and advocacy development, from festive gatherings and extensive mooting opportunities to the lively “Rite of Spring” Ball celebrating student achievement and connection at Gray’s Inn.

Black History Month Panel Event: Black Silk October 2025

Black History Month’s Black Silk at Gray’s Inn honoured Black excellence at the Bar, celebrating inspiring advocates and KCs whose journeys emphasised authenticity, persistence, progress and the power of community.

Evaluating Evidence – Cautionary Tales!

Reflections on two murder cases exposing false confessions and flawed assumptions, and asking whether open minds can ultimately prevent miscarriages of justice.

Ena Collymore-Woodstock – A Remarkable Life

Ena Collymore‑Woodstock, Jamaican barrister, magistrate, war veteran and a tireless pioneer for women, died aged 108, leaving an extraordinary legacy of justice, courage and service spanning a century.