I have been reading about Frank Harris's trial for contempt of court in February, 1914, and while there are a number of aspects that may strike us as odd now, such as that Harris was committed to prison for an "indefinite period" for the seemingly minor offence of printing comments about an ongoing divorce case in his magazine Modern Society, and then failing to offer a sufficiently abject apology, there is one thing that struck me in particular.
In court, Harris was represented by his barrister, Cecil Hayes, who, rather than apologising outright for the offence chose to seek to minimise it, offering an apology only for "the little bits that had got in in a slipshod manner" which would reflect on the character of Earl Fitzwilliam, one of the co-respondents named in the case. The Judge, Mr. Justice Horridge, was evidently not persuaded that this was an apology at all.
My question is about where to place the blame for how Hayes conducted the case. If we assume he was following instructions from Harris, was he obliged to do so to the letter, or might he have decided, seeing how Horridge was inclined, to have interpreted his instructions in such a way that he apologised completely and unreservedly? Or was he absolutely obliged to follow his client's instructions as literally as possible, even if they were very unwise?
