Preface

It is said that ‘no man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.’^[1] In keeping with this biblical injunction, it is a well-accepted principle of legal practice that lawyers should not act for two or more clients whose interests may potentially conflict.

Although some practitioners and academic writers have highlighted the diffi­culty of managing conflicts of interest in the modern law firm, the subject has not previously been the focus of empirical investigation. The difficulty with rely­ing upon leading cases as a measure of evolving practice is that conflicts of inter­est are a largely subterranean problem, with the occasional injunction representing a dramatic failure of the more normal strategies for dealing with conflicts. In order to establish whether there has developed a significant gap between the regulatory framework and the way conflicts are managed on the ground, it was necessary to observe the day to day reality of legal practice in the large commercial law firm.

This book started life as a PhD thesis, and I had no idea when I began that I would stumble upon a major disjunction between the rules and the conduct of major law firms. My research revealed significant tension between the regulatory framework and the common law, but a more dramatic gulf between both forms of regulation and the way some law firms actually behave. This ‘gap’ between rules and behaviour is a common theme of socio-legal research, and over time the pressure to resolve the resulting tension often proves overwhelming.

The question of how conflicts should be ‘managed’ has taken on increased significance following the Law Society’s decision to review the rules and prin­ciples governing solicitors’ professional conduct. Its aim in conducting such a review is to compile ‘a rule book which reflects both the realities of running a

viii Preface solicitor’s practice in the twenty-first century and the importance of protecting the public interest’.^[2] I hope that this book will contribute to this debate.

The book would not have been possible without the help and support of a number of people. First and foremost I am deeply indebted to Professor Gwynn Davis. He has provided much-appreciated advice, guidance and criticism and has proved an invaluable mentor and friend. This work would have been much poorer without him. I would also like to thank Professor Roger Kerridge and Professor Avrom Sherr for their helpful suggestions following the examination of my thesis.

Thanks are also due to my colleagues Professor John Parkinson, Stephen Jones, Sam Lewis and Brenda Sufrin for their help and encouragement through­out the writing of the manuscript. Lorraine Dyer provided invaluable secretar­ial assistance, and I also benefited from the support of Sue Pettit and other staff of the University of Bristol law library who located several very obscure articles. I am likewise grateful to the solicitors, barristers and representatives of com­mercial organisations who participated in the empirical study.

My debt to other authorities and writers is, I hope, sufficiently acknowledged in the text. I am solely responsible for the errors which remain.

Finally, my thanks go to my parents for their unfailing support and encour­agement throughout the project.

JG-B. Bristol

July 2002