Being a playwright through the reign of Elizabeth I was a very risky occupation. We forget that it was a time when governments governed but the monarch was the law. The monarch was the embodiment of God’s authority and anything that questioned this authority could be seen as treasonous. Of course, this has all changed and now it is parliament whose power needs curbing. For this, we have our judges to thank.

Like many of his contemporaries, Shakespeare was not afraid to tackle potentially controversial issues surrounding the activities of Kings and powerful leaders, for example in the plays Richard III, Julius Caesar, Henry V and Macbeth. Elizabeth I was mistakenly considered a weak monarch because of her gender and many of Shakespeare’s colleagues found themselves locked up, or worse, for presenting issues that could undermine her authority.

In my opinion, the great thing about Shakespeare was his ability to disguise his personal views. An argument by one character seeking to bring about change is often countered by another which warns of the perils of such action. He carefully leaves space for us, the audience, to weigh up the issues and come to our own conclusions. This is very much something that we, as lawyers, must practice – considering both sides of the argument that will in turn convince a jury. Shakespeare not only practices sensible political insurance but also conveys an understanding of the legal process.

So, how can I suggest that Shakespeare might have had legal training? Firstly, I admit that this claim is speculative and secondly that I have shamelessly abridged the arguments put forward by Jonathan Bate in his book The Soul of the Age which explores the social history surrounding Shakespeare’s writings (a fascinating read, I must add). Bate makes reference to Clements Inn, an old legal institution that Shakespeare refers to in Henry IV Part 2. In many ways Clements Inn was a poor man’s court attached the Chancery Division, it dealt with property and its members were the equivalent of solicitors.

We know that the Shakespeare family became involved in litigation. His father had to transfer land in payment of debt and this had to go up the legal food chain to Chancery Courts in London. William is mentioned in the records of this case and there is thought that he may have had some training at Clements Inn during this period, which might explain his knowledge of the law and his lawyer like mind-set.

It is fascinating to think that the playwright was trained as the equivalent of a modern day solicitor. He certainly showed a talent for presenting legal argument and for devising solutions to legal disputes – talents that are very much in demand in modern times. This is a perfect example of how it is important to take inspiration from unlikely places, something we encourage in the workplace by having all departments engaged with one another.