He has no obligation whatsoever to tell City whether they’re “guilty “ or not.
He has an obligation to act in the client’s best interest and to hold the Premier League to the required standard of proof.
My point was that Pannick (and hundreds of other KCs) has taken cases of people / organisations with little / no regard for how that might affect perceptions of his own standing.
He’s there to present the best case possible for City. He may think we’re bang to rights. Wouldn’t make an iota of...
James Chadwin QC, represented Peter Sutcliffe. Fairly sure he thought there was an element of “wrongdoing “ with his client.
Pannick represented Boris Johnson. And lost.
He won’t care whether we’re wrong or right - he’ll present our case to the best of his abilities. And duties.