In light of Lad Litter’s comments, I was thinking about the contrast between drugs (illegal) and alcohol (legal). I guess it’s because drugs are perceived as more “dangerous” to those who use them. So we regard that as an area where the law can impinge on people’s personal freedoms to an extent. Some drugs are more addictive than alcohol, and can lead people to take actions that they would not otherwise undertake (eg, heroin and ice). They cause social problems and health problems for society. But if we want to drink ourselves into a stupor, there is no law against that. Alcohol can equally well cause social and health problems. It’s a tough one to work out.

As I said in my response to Lad Litter, I think the drug testing idea is not workable or appropriate. But I don’t like the pretense that the law is “immune” from drugs. We’re human beings too (honestly, we are!) I think it should be discussed and debated.

In my personal opinion, drugs are an issue throughout society and all of the professions. The law is not an island in this regard. Just as in the rest of society, some people will lose control and jeopardise their and others’ interests. So it is in the law.

On Faris, it seems that he has achieved his goal. Everyone is talking about him and his speculation on hearsay. It’s not good publicity but that does not seem to matter.

Finally, on drug testing, where do you stop? I don’t just mean in relation to drugs but which other of our liberties need to be impinged to appropriately sanitise and sterilise?

Personally, I think drug testing of lawyers would be a waste of time, but it’s good that at least the issue is being discussed. There have been heaps of rumours going around for years, and lots of stuff just swept under the carpet.

The unspoken issue is the relatively high incidence of depression and alcohol abuse by senior practitioners - there is evidence to suggest that some turn to abuse of alcohol and, by extension, drugs, to self-medicate and deal with the pressure (as Skepticlawyer says).

I think it would be better to try to deal with the problems in the industry than to allow people to self-medicate and potentially put themselves at risk of harm.

LE

I know what you mean. To an extent, why shouldn’t what one does in one’s private life be a lawyer’s private business?

However, I think drug use by lawyers raises public issues for the following reasons:
1. We are people who are supposed to uphold the law and be ethical to a higher degree than others. Drug taking is illegal - so how can we be said to be a profession which upholds the law if we tolerate illegal practices within our ranks? It seems a bit hypocritical - it suggests that we’re above the law.
2. If drugs use affects performance and service to clients, it also becomes an issue.
3. The conflict of interest point which you have already made. For example, Andrew Fraser, was a lawyer who got jailed in 2001 for heroin importation and trafficking, was involved with various criminals and traffickers, and acted as a defence lawyer to some of them.

Have a look at this interesting article in The Age the other day - provides a fair and balanced perspective.

LE

I wouldn’t want a doped up lawyer representing me, any more than I’d like doped up surgeon operating on me.

Who would pay for the testing? I suppose if solicitors worked in a firm, the firm would have to institute tests. A bit more difficult if they were sole practitioners or barristers - then it’s up to the individual.

LE

Never come across any drug taking lawyer - solicitor or counsel. Sad to hear of it.

When I first heard of this “let’s drug test the lawyers” I thought it was a joke. But ask yourself this - if you were an accused in any sort of serious criminal matter, would you be concerned to know if your lawyer was doped up? The question is, who pays for the testing?