In February, the human rights lawyer Phil Shiner was struck off and ordered to pay costs by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). Its findings included dishonesty and extremely serious breaches of professional rules, including misleading the court and paying referral fees. At the time of writing, a related case against lawyers from Leigh Day is pending at the SDT. I have never worked with Shiner but have, in the past, signed letters supporting him and his now-closed firm, Public Interest Lawyers, in the face of what was clearly politically motivated hounding by the right-wing press, particularly the Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

The problem for those of us who believe it is essential that British troops be subject to the Human Rights Act is that the downfall of Shiner has not been treated by the press as the plight of one individual, but as somehow proving the political arguments. No account is taken of the sickening scandal of Baha Mousa, the Iraqi hotel receptionist beaten to death by British troops, or of the cases still before the Iraq Historic Allegations Team that are deemed credible and worthy of investigation. Shiner has not been given credit for the many good things he did, including acting for British soldiers’ families and for the Gurkhas. It is not clear to what extent the vitriolic abuse he suffered for years, not only at the hands of the press, but with Tory governments joining in, may have affected his judgement. And Shiner did not do his cases alone; idealistic lawyers who knew nothing of the professional breaches worked with him.

All over the world, lawyers are persecuted for representing clients viewed as a threat to the state. This year, the Day of the Endangered Lawyer on 24 January focused on the plight of lawyers in China and Egypt. Previous years have seen the focus on Honduras, the Philippines, Turkey and Iran. The UN’s Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers state: ‘Lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions’ (principle 18).

I have had my own experience of being targeted for doing my job as a lawyer. During the Ladbroke Grove Public Inquiry in 2000, I organised press conferences and issued press releases on behalf of bereaved and injured people. These were critical of Railtrack, the private company then in charge of the rail infrastructure. Railtrack was trying to defend itself and blame the train driver for the crash. It threatened to sue me for libel and complained to the inquiry chair, Lord Cullen. Inexplicably, Cullen took Railtrack’s part – I think he may have thought I was bound by Bar Council rules on commenting on a case. Both Railtrack and Cullen made professional complaints against me, though Cullen later withdrew his.

A case went to the SDT alleging that I had broken rule 1 of the Solicitors Professional Conduct Rules with my inappropriate criticism of Railtrack. The case nearly went all the way to a hearing; I had to hire and pay for a City firm of solicitors and a QC to represent me, and submit a long written argument citing (inter alia) freedom of expression and submitting statements in support from my clients. In the event, there was no hearing, though I had to suffer the indignity of the SDT expressing its ‘regret’ at my actions. Two years later, I was doing a television interview in front of Railtrack’s headquarters at Euston on the day of its demise and replacement by Network Rail.

I tell this story because it brought home to me the potential for politically motivated hounding of lawyers in this country. For the readers of this column, the lesson is that meticulous care to comply with professional requirements is especially needed in any politically contentious case.