Lord Hermer KC, Attorney General since July 2024, entered government as a heavyweight lawyer dropped straight into one of the most politically awkward roles in the state. The Attorney General is meant to be the government's legal conscience, chief adviser and guardian of the rule of law while overseeing the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office. In theory, it is a post built for legal seriousness. In practice, it is where ministerial enthusiasm goes to discover whether the constitution bites.

Hermer brought serious credentials. Called to the Bar in 1993, took silk in 2009, former Head of Chambers at Matrix and Deputy High Court Judge. He arrived with far more legal weight than most ministers who drift into office carrying ambition and a folder marked "urgent." That background matters. The role needs someone capable of resisting cheap politics, especially when ministers treat legal limits as decorative fencing around the policy lawn.

His core strength is also the source of anger around him. He takes law seriously. That sounds obvious, but in Westminster it can feel subversive. Reports describe ministerial frustration over stricter legal advice standards, with claims his approach slowed government by requiring confidence that policies could survive legal challenge. Critics saw obstruction. Supporters saw the Attorney General doing the job after years when legal advice appeared stretched thin enough to see daylight through it.

The problem is that government cannot function as a permanent seminar on legal purity. A sharp lawyer saves ministers from courtroom humiliation but becomes a bottleneck if every policy is treated like a future exhibit. Hermer's challenge is proving that respect for law does not mean paralysis. Rule of law matters. But voters expect elected government to govern, not shuffle in legal slippers while public services collapse outside.

Controversy over his past legal work followed him into office. Attacks focused on clients he represented before becoming Attorney General, though senior lawyers defended him by citing the principle that barristers represent clients without personal endorsement. That defence matters. The legal system collapses if representation becomes character confession. But politics is not a courtroom. Public perception is rougher, louder and less interested in professional doctrine.

His approach to international law, Chagos and human rights made him a target for opponents who believe Labour is too legalistic, too cautious, too establishment. There is something symbolic about him: a KC standing at the centre of government telling a restless political class that clever slogans still pass through actual law. Useful, yes. Popular, rarely.

Overall, Lord Hermer looks like a serious lawyer in a system impatient with seriousness. His value is stopping government behaving like a drunk with a legislative chainsaw. His weakness is appearing remote, lawyerly and insulated from political urgency. The test is simple. If he protects legality while helping government act, he will be remembered as a necessary brake. If he becomes the face of delay and constitutional fog, he will be the man who turned the Attorney General's Office into a velvet lined traffic jam.