Police, priests and hairdressers more ‘trusted’ than lawyers, according to research

By on

But judges fared better in new ‘Veracity Index’


New research has revealed the public trusts police officers, priests and hairdressers to tell the truth more than it trusts lawyers.

The 2016 ‘Veracity Index’ questioned more than 1,000 people about their attitudes towards different professions.

These new statistics — produced by market research outfit Ipsos MORI and parenting website Mumsnet — reveal the Great British public believes that lawyers are less likely “to tell the truth” than their counterparts in the police force, priesthood, or down the local salon.

With lawyers winning the trust of just 52% of those surveyed, it seems television newsreaders, civil servants, doctors, teachers and scientists are all perceived to be more trustworthy than those practising law. Nurses top the list as the most trustworthy profession of all, with 93% of respondents revealing they trust nurses to tell the truth.

However it’s not all bad news for lawyers. According to the new data, they are held in higher regard than pollsters, bankers, estate agents, economists and — though we at Legal Cheek can’t quite believe it — journalists. Right down the far end of the index is politicians, trusted by only 15% of those asked.

Perhaps more surprising is that judges scored far higher than lawyers on the index. Posting a trust rating of 81%, those questioned viewed them to be more trustworthy than scientists, though less so than teachers.

It is worth noting, however, that the fieldwork for this survey was completed by 1 November, just a few days before the tabloid press launched an attack on judges post-Brexit High Court judgment. Legal Cheek speculates whether headlines like ‘ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE’ will alter public trust in the judiciary.

2016 Veracity Index



Not Amused

Well a poll of 1,000 people is only of value to journalists trying to fill column inches.

But with the public you find “lawyer” has acquired lots of US negative connotations. I doubt “solicitor” and “barrister” would poll quite so poorly.


Amused Political Scientist

1000 is a more than ample sample size to produce statistically significant results, provided the selection is truly random. Stick to lawyering 🙂


Not Amused

“1000 is a more than ample sample size to produce statistically significant results, provided the selection is truly random.”

Say the people who want to have a career pretending you can extrapolate conclusions from polling. It’s a bit like psychologists pretending questionnaires give some form of scientific legitimacy. They don’t.

But I of course understand your, no doubt entirely genuine conviction, on behalf of your own naked self interest.

I’ll stick to my lawyering and wondering quite why pollsters, astrologers and clairvoyants can afford shoes. The mysteries of the modern world.



Actually, the laws of statistics are fixed and even the Supreme Court can no more change them than it can make Pi = 3.

The law that polling obeys is SEp = 1.96* (SQRT (p * (1-p))/n)
Which means the MoE on a poll of n=1,000 (with low design effect) to 95% confidence limits is about 3.1% (plus or minus).

I’m an ex Prosecutor, ex Magistrate and current Head of Insight, so I _just_ about understand this. You’re a part trained lawyer, so you clearly can’t.
Don’t try to get involved with forensic statistics!


Snide Prick

Nobody gives a shit. Legal cheek is literally the shittiest journalism site ever



Do you mean figuratively?


Snide Prick

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.



Someone got a 2:2 at law school.



Clearly a Desmond.


Ciaran Goggins

71% trust plod? Wake up and smell the cawfee.



I’m suprised it’s that high. The lies case handlers tell me when briefing me for a hearing are horrendous. They seem to forget that as I’m in-house I can access the file.


Comments are closed.