Lord Pannick celebrates advocacy: that controversial legal issues are decided in court after reasoned argument in which the participants refrain (usually) from shouting, personal insults or threats, and the points on each side of the debate are tested for their relevance, their accuracy, and their strength. The book seeks to identify the central characteristics of good and bad advocacy with the aid of examples from courtrooms in the UK and abroad. Lord Pannick also examines the morality of advocacy - that the advocate sets out views to which he does not necessarily subscribe, on behalf of clients for whom she may feel admiration, indifference, or contempt. Lord Pannick seeks to answer the question he is often asked - more by friends than by judges - 'How can you act for such terrible people?'. Finally, he addresses the future of advocacy, arguing it should and will survive pressures for efficiency and technological developments.

There are law books about constructive trusts, the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964, and the rule in Foss v Harbottle. This law book is not one of them. Writer David Pannick has always been much more interested in unpersuasive advocates and injudicious judges. In this entertaining and sometimes shocking collection of his fortnightly columns from The Times (London), Pannick passes judgement on advocates who tell judges that their closing submissions to the jury will not take long because "I would like to move my car before 5 o'clock." Pannick also sentences judges who claim to have invisible dwarf friends sitting with them on the Bench, who order the parties to "stay loose - as a goose," and who signal their rejection of an advocate's argument by flushing a miniature toilet on the bench. Pannick will entertain and inform the reader about judges, lawyers, legal culture, and law reform. I Have to Move My Car is an ideal gift for all those who appreciate the lighter side to court life.

Lord Pannick celebrates advocacy: that controversial legal issues are decided in court after reasoned argument in which the participants refrain (usually) from shouting, personal insults or threats, and the points on each side of the debate are tested for their relevance, their accuracy, and their strength. The book seeks to identify the central characteristics of good and bad advocacy with the aid of examples from courtrooms in the UK and abroad. Lord Pannick also examines the morality of advocacy - that the advocate sets out views to which he does not necessarily subscribe, on behalf of clients for whom she may feel admiration, indifference, or contempt. Lord Pannick seeks to answer the question he is often asked - more by friends than by judges - 'How can you act for such terrible people?'. Finally, he addresses the future of advocacy, arguing it should and will survive pressures for efficiency and technological developments.