Spending my Christmas break reading The Secret Barrister (published in 2018), I am struck by how many lessons apply far beyond the UK criminal (justice) system — to education, to special educational needs and disabilities, to capital and corporations, and to board governance.
The message is stark. Its relevance today is uncomfortable.
My thanks to one of approximately 18,000 practising barristers in England and Wales for giving voice to what happens behind the scenes — at the level of the accused, jury, judge, solicitor, barrister, witness, and court staff alike.
Systems rarely fail through dramatic collapse. They fail through pressure. Through funding constraints. Through efficiency drives. Through “temporary” compromises that quietly become permanent.
One question keeps returning — and it is one every system, every board should sit with:
If pressure increased 3×, whose voice would disappear first?
And which values would quietly become optional?
Boards often assume values are embedded because they are articulated. But values (created through culture) — are only real when they survive pressure.
In my experience, it is rarely the dominant voices that fall away. It is:
- Long-term stakeholders, in favour of short-term performance
- Risk, legal & compliance, and stewardship voices, in favour of speed
- Mission, impact, and culture, in favour of financial optics
- Independent challenge, in favour of alignment
- Those without capital, control, or seniority
As pressure increases, dissent becomes “unhelpful”, any oversight is framed as friction…stewardship is treated as a cost AND human judgement is replaced by metrics that feel safer.
From the outside, the organisation still functions, but on inside, legitimacy erodes.
For boards, a more useful test is not what do we value? but:
- Who can slow a decision down?
- Who can say “no” without consequence?
Systems do not fail because boards do not care.
They fail because governance relies on good intentions rather than resilient structures.
