When Boris Johnson needed help in his battle with the Commons privileges committee over Partygate, he turned to the “terrific and punchy advocate” Lord Pannick KC.
The esteemed barrister boasts an illustrious career, having represented a number of high profile clients including Queen Elizabeth II, former BBC director-general Mark Thompson, Shamima Begum and an ally of Vladimir Putin.
From a young age Pannick developed an interest in debating, having spent time on a scholarship at the private Bancroft School, heading to the Old Bailey to watch cases as a 16-year-old.
His scholarship opened doors for him to study law at Hertford College, Oxford University, before qualifying as a barrister at Gray’s Inn in 1979.
The young graduate emerged on the courts scene with a loss, as he represented a man in Singapore who was facing the death penalty. Reflecting on the case, he told Sally Penni on the Talking Law Podcast: “We lost. Our client was hanged. That’s not a good way to start your practice – you can only get better after a start like that. I tell that to clients – some are reassured, some are not.”
It seemed many clients and legal professionals were reassured. Barrister Jo Maugham KC, who founded the Good Law Project, described the crossbench peer as “a terrific lawyer with an absolutely formidable reputation across the sector”.
“I have never spoken to anyone who believes his reputation is undeserved,” he added.
Other lawyers who have butted heads with Pannick have said he has the ability to “dazzle the court into submission”. Johnson needs all the support he can get, having lost the confidence of his own cabinet over Partygate, which led him to be ousted from No 10 last summer. Who better than “the ultimate lawyer’s lawyer”, as he was described by one former colleague.
But some have questioned whether it is not just Pannick’s talent but his distaste for the Partygate inquiry led by the committee that has encouraged him to defend the former prime minister.
He garnered much merit after leading the article 50 case against Johnson’s government and represented Gina Miller successfully, marking him as one of the most skilled barristers of his generation.
Pannick, “like many barristers of his status, is not troubled by self-doubt”, one lawyer who has worked alongside him said. “That extends not just to an area of learning where he has less need for self-doubt like public law, but other areas that he is not much interested in like the interrelationship between power and the law.”
There has been a suggestion that Johnson sought legal help and advocacy from Pannick because of the lawyer’s views on Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who was accused of groping a woman and promising her a peerage for sex.
The House of Lords voted to block Lester’s suspension after Pannick forced a vote in the Lords. Pannick had tabled an amendment to the report saying it should be sent back to the committee because it had not acted “in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness”. The vote was won by 101 to 78, stopping the suspension.
Pannick is not known for doing much pro bono work but rather for his extremely high legal fees. The peer is known to charge approximately £5,000 an hour for his services. Representing Dubai’s ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, during his divorce alongside a team of other lawyers, total lawyers’ fees for both sides reached more than £70m. Pannick also received almost £130,000 to scrutinise the legal basis for the Partygate inquiry last year.
