Protecting Lawyers and the Rule of Law

James Blake and Azam Hawari (ClientEarth) discuss the unique risks faced by lawyers seeking to protect the rule of law, and steps that organisations can take to mitigate these risks.

The risk environment for lawyers and human rights defenders in 2026

In mid-February it emerged that Alexi Navalny, the late Russian opposition leader, had been poisoned by dart frog poison shortly before his death. What is less discussed in the media is that his lawyers were sentenced to five and half years in prison on charges that they were supporting an ‘extremist organisation’. His case is not just a clear example of the risks of those who speak out, but also a clear statement of the risks which lawyers face when they seek to provide legal advice to protect those who speak truth to power.

A revealing case study is Guatemala, which remains highly vulnerable to corruption as detailed in the Corruption Perception Index (ranked 142 of 182 countries in 2025).  The country has an entrenched political elite, and spheres of power which permeate lines between the military and business communities. The weaponization of social media – often aided by artificial intelligence – has been used to undermine or discredit political opponents in an effort to prevent them from upending political power structures.

A 2019 International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) report titled  Bots, Netcenters and the Fight Against Impunity described efforts to “flood” social media with stories and information to discredit the commission and its coverage. The report highlighted that more than eight journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders, and others were harassed online through Twitter activity, which was linked to the netcentres.

The CICIG, which was established in 2007, had significant success in undermining corruption in the country but was ultimately dismantled in 2019 after it had begun to investigate then President Jimmy Morales. Lawyers defending many of those either investigating or attempting to protect those who were aiming to end corruption were forced to flee the country because of threats, intimidation and often targeted disinformation.

This case study is an indicator of the risk to lawyers seeking to protect the rule of law. January 24 marked the 16th annual Day of the Endangered Lawyer, which this year focused on the United States, following a rise in polarisation and threats and attacks against US lawyers and firms.

Set against emerging global trends of polarization, a decline in the rule of law in many countries, and the number of judges, lawyers and others directly targeted, this is an increasingly global problem. Some accounts suggest we are in fact entering a ‘new world order’ and one which requires new thinking and ideas in terms of protection of lawyers so that the legal system does not flex to become a system which protects the strong.

The unique risks faced by lawyers and advocates

Across the globe lawyers are facing increased risks. One of the co-authors of this piece is a lawyer working on forest governance in Indonesia, with a focus on policy, advocacy, capacity building, and community-based initiatives. While his work does not involve litigation, he has in the past worked closely with grassroots partners who often face serious risks. These include disinformation campaigns, intimidation, harassment, as well as digital and physical surveillance, particularly when they are handling sensitive cases.

A growing vulnerability is work with smaller partners. Smaller legal groups, community groups, or other NGOs often have limited capacity, resources and expertise to govern physical or digital risks. The release of the Panama Papers from Mossack Fonseca in 2016 which resulted in the leak of 11.5 million files shows how significant a cyber breach or incident can become in the legal sector, particularly when managing sensitive or potentially explosive documents pertaining to controversial matters.

There is growing awareness in certain European countries, the Middle East and South East Asia about the prevalence of digital surveillance. This includes the surveillance of phone calls and text messages, which can lead to a breach of confidentiality, along with facial recognition and other ways to track movements.

More tangibly, there is increasingly prevalent view that digital and cyber incidents in the nonprofit sector are underrepresented. For some in the legal sector, we are also often faced with threats which have moved far beyond governments and institutions. Instead, private sector firms or lobbying groups which hire sub-contractors or third parties are used to undermine, scare, intimidate, or prevent our operations and our lawyers from doing their jobs.

Arguably the best known example of this is the hacking of activists linked to the Exxon Knew campaign between 2016-17. A specialist cyber firm in India was used to carry out relatively sophisticated cyber-attacks against a group of climate partners that threatened to shed light on Exxon’s role in driving the climate crisis and therefore damaging its share price and reputation (find the Citizen Lab report here). The very phrase of ‘hack-for-hire’ has come to permeate the environmental NGO sector.

Managing these risks

There is significant good news on this front. In May 2025, the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer opened for signature, and has been signed by 29 States (as of April 2026). Human Rights groups have also become increasingly vocal in supporting efforts to protect human rights defenders. A joint statement by various groups, including the George W. Bush Institute, on this years’ International Day of the Endangered Lawyer highlights some of the key threats faced by human rights lawyers.

However, increased efforts are still needed for similar work, whether in relation to the environmental sector or efforts to protect health from industries causing cancers or others to those who provide critical support and advice to human rights defenders, and those encouraging change in fragile or conflict states.

Physical and digital mitigations

For many legal organisations, security is not baked into risk mitigation. The focus is instead around the case and final work. This is something which needs to change through a shift in security culture. When resources are tight, including risk mitigation ahead of any case launch or new piece of work is critical to helping to reduce and manage the risks downstream. Similarly, we need to encourage a collective shared responsibility, where all staff are aware of the risks and can help to identify vulnerabilities and sensible mitigation strategies.

Increased sharing of sector expertise
Organisations require additional support. There is clearly limited budget and limited expertise in this space. Often those who are hired seem to have experience from other sectors and that does not always translate into understanding the unique risk profile the sector is exposed to. We would benefit collectively from those who have been doing this work sharing skillsets, best practices, and experiences in a formalized collective group.

Heightened understanding of external resources
Our work ethos is very much aligned with supporting the mission of our organisation. That is well and good, but we need more external resources and awareness of how we can mitigate the risks. In the humanitarian sector, there are several excellent initiatives which we could learn from, which include the Protect Aid Workers initiative, which provides financial and legal resources for humanitarian workers who experience critical incidents through their work. This is very important. With the best will in the world, our insurance policies will not be able to manage wrongful detentions, lengthy legal battles, or SLAPP lawsuits.

Increased cyber security expertise
We are especially exposed to cyber risk and breaches. Again, we have seen the success of Cyber Peace Institute and its emphasis on auditing and providing capacity building in the non-profit space. We need similar resources and frameworks, which specifically evaluate the vulnerability of our data, the personal information of our staff, not to mention our fundraisers, People Team and others.

Increased risk management innovation
There is an increasing need for innovative and forward-thinking risk management. This includes assessing risk with the composition of future work portfolios, and an assessment of the maximum risk we are prepared to take before launching prospective work. The design of projects and work streams, including gathering support from behind the scenes, must take into account the security of partners and the other voices which add strength to our work. Additionally ,for each new component of work we need to assess its potential impact on organisational risk, which includes the use of partners to enable the work.

The wider policy landscape

Ensure that sector experts have a say in defining threats
We need conventions and international efforts to extend their definition of the threats our sector is exposed to. Currently the Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer does not, for instance, directly provide clauses which define or address disinformation, secret surveillance or cyber risks. This ultimately means that policy developments require the input of those working in this space to ensure that the reality of the situation is documented and addressed. This is particularly important in locations which are without any convention to help reduce risks.

One of the larger concerns is that the Convention is based on state enforced mitigation measures after specific incidents occur. This has worked in some cases, such as following the death of the Dutch lawyer Derk Wiersum, but is clearly less likely to be effective in cases where state policy might be at odds with the work a lawyer is doing. For example, a lawyer fighting a policy that has negative environmental impacts may find it difficult to find support from a state that is prioritising the increased energy stability that the policy was designed to create.

Increase accountability of corporations who attempt to undermine the efforts of human rights defenders
We note the success the US Department of Justice has had in exposing and investigating links to the private sector. This needs to be extended to other cases, many of which are not in the public space, but they are happening and there needs to be accountability to ensure a shift in behaviour of corporations which think they can bully or undermine efforts to expose corruption, poor management, or other matters. Threats that are made to individuals need to be reported through a clear line and investigated and acted upon to show that such behaviour will not be tolerated.

Final thoughts

The examples highlighted in this short blog are clear in indicating the scale of the issue. What is required is some momentum built from recent events, news, and developments to help address this issue. Policies must be designed to align it with the reality of what is happening, with input from those impacted.

Ultimately our aim is to enable lawyers to do their job, which in the case of our organisation is protecting people and the earth. But this also extends to those who are protecting democracy, corruption investigations, and other human rights abuses.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not represent the views or position of the authors’ employers, or GISF.

Related: