Okay, I know that sounds crazy, but really I do. Yes she’s married the most gorgeous man in the world who seems, as far as we can tell, a really nice man as well, but she is paying a price.

A few months ago she was a respected international lawyer whose beauty and fashion sense were strictly private and for the enjoyment of her own friends and family. Now, the whole world feels entitled to comment on why she married him, what she wore, whether the ceremony was over the top, and, bizarrely,  would she make a good First Lady?

In today’s Daily Mail columnist Robert Hardman (Hardman? Really?) objects to the fact that she is part of a team of lawyers who have arrived in Greece to advise the government on the fight to have the Elgin marbles returned to Greece, which is something people have been arguing about for two hundred years. Mr Hardman adopts a very nasty tone when discussing Mrs Clooney:

But, of course, everyone is here to see Mrs Clooney. Until now, the former Amal Alamuddin has been billed as a ‘human rights’ lawyer, like Mr Robertson. Among her better-known clients is creepy Wikileaks fugitive, Julian Assange. It’s hard to discern a human rights angle to several tons of marble but, no doubt, this cerebral quartet will come up with one.

Billed as a human rights lawyer? What does he mean to imply by that? Has she been fooling us, is she really a hairdresser? Like many journalists, and members of the public, he seems not to have the slightest idea what lawyers actually do. Lawyers in film and television are either crusaders, taking on the big guys on behalf of the oppressed, or sleazy ambulance chasers. Newsflash Mr Hardman  – lawyers are interested in the law in the same way doctors are interested in medicine. They approach each case objectively as a law problem. It is not up to them to decide on guilt or innocence, right or wrong. They simply do the best they can for their client because it is their duty to do so.

Did you know, Mr Hardman, that a barrister is not permitted to turn down a client for any other reason that conflict of interest? So a loving father of little girls may find himself defending a man who has raped and murdered a child. He will feel exactly as you or I would about the disgusting creep but he has to take the case, and having taken it, he has to do his best. Indeed if he does not, he provides the defendant with grounds for appeal. Moreover, if the client tells his lawyer he is innocent the lawyer must proceed on that assumption. Which is why victims must be cross-examined and accused of telling lies. Because if his client is innocent, the witness must be telling lies. It is up to the prosecution to convince the jury that the victim/witness is telling the truth. Whether Julian Assange is creepy or not is really nothing to do with his lawyer. All he or she needs to do is look into the law, make the case according to the law and pursue it according to the law. There is nothing dishonourable in this.

Now, for God’s sake leave the poor girl alone to get on with her job.