‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers’. (Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part II, act IV – statement made by Dick the Butcher, a follower of rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king) ‘First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a socialist. Then they for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.’ (Martin Niemöller, prominent German Lutheran pastor and outspoken foe of Adolf Hitler, who spent seven years in a concentration camp) The term ‘populism’ – which has become a euphemism for describing extreme ideological positions in public discourse – is becoming increasingly popular and proving attractive to more people in many countries today. It is difficult to deny that the designation of a person or party as ‘populist’ poses a serious problem beyond the actors, as it seems a threat for the future of democracies, legal systems and the entire legal profession. Lawyers and judges feel many times pressed while seeking to maintain due process and legal representation of unpopular clients in an age of increasing trials by social media. Regardless of its historical antecedents, populism today poses challenges not only in terms of attacks on the judiciary, but in terms of what is acceptable speech; it is no longer a matter of right or left. For many, it seems to be the political cancer of the 21st century. This BIC Showcase session looks into recent efforts by governments and political parties around the world to tighten control of the judiciary, not give credence to the rule of law and use the courts as a delaying tactic (when not in some way promoting bribes to and corruption of judges), as well as to manage lawyers and prosecutors under different slogans. Scholars and practitioners assert that the trouble with the legal profession is not only that it can lose its autonomy, and thus its ability to act as a sociopolitical force that is independent from the ruling political party or coalition, but also by virtue of the tightened control, law can become an unattractive channel for widespread opposition to economic, political and social actions and policies of a society or government. The legal profession should probably look at both Shakespeare and Niemöller’s citations when considering how to address this polarising critical issue, which, while putting pressure on bar and law practitioners, provides them with an essential say and role in society.