The Curious Case of Lord Hermer's Online Defenders
Why are supporters hiding behind anonymity in a legal journal? Is it a coordinated PR campaign?
A peculiar pattern has emerged in the online debate surrounding Lord Hermer. While his critics step forward boldly with their names attached, his defenders lurk in the shadows of anonymity – a detail that raises intriguing questions about the nature of this public discourse.
The stoush began on February 18, when two former Law Society presidents and two ex-bar chairs co-signed a letter to the Guardian condemning ‘venomous’ attacks on the attorney general, which they allege undermine the rule of law.
On February 19, The Law Society Gazette ran an article on the letter and inviting comments.
By February 20, the comments section announced: “This article is now closed for comment.
Just when it got interesting.
The numbers tell an interesting story: ten supporters versus six critics. At first glance, this might suggest a clear victory for Hermer's camp. However, dig deeper and you'll find that nine out of ten supportive comments come from anonymous sources, while his critics – such as Robert Ashton, Edmund Burke, and Marshall Hall – put their names to their concerns.
What's particularly striking is the professional polish of these anonymous defences. They read less like spontaneous comments and more like carefully crafted talking points, each hitting similar themes: the sanctity of legal representation, the importance of separating lawyers from their clients, and the dangers of politicising the justice system. The uniformity of these messages, combined with their strategic deployment throughout the day, bears hallmarks of a coordinated PR campaign.
One anonymous comment at 12:39pm offers a supposedly personal account of working with Hermer, calling him a "real advocate" and a "real asset." This testimonial, while compelling, follows a familiar PR playbook: the insider perspective used to humanise and defend a public figure under scrutiny.
The timing and spacing of these anonymous comments also raises eyebrows. They appear at regular intervals, each reinforcing previous points while adding new layers to the defence – a pattern often seen in professional reputation management strategies.
Meanwhile, Hermer's critics focus on substantive issues: allegations of political bias, questions about impartiality, and concerns about activism overshadowing legal principle. Their willingness to attach their names to these criticisms stands in stark contrast to the anonymous chorus of support.
This disparity begs several questions: Why would supporters, particularly those claiming direct professional experience with Hermer, feel the need to hide behind anonymity? In a profession that values transparency and accountability, what explains this reluctance to stand publicly behind their endorsements?
The most plausible explanation may be that we're witnessing a sophisticated PR operation in action – one designed to shape public opinion while maintaining the appearance of organic support. If true, this raises broader concerns about the manipulation of public discourse and the increasing professionalisation of online reputation management in legal circles.