[8][9] Lawrance had been nominated by Lord Halsbury, who had a reputation for choosing judges on party political grounds, especially from the ranks of "unsuccessful Tory M.P.s with large majorities and no incomes".

The Law Times wrote that "This is a bad appointment, for although a popular man and a thorough English gentleman, Mr. Lawrance has no reputation as a lawyer, and has been rarely seen of recent years in the Royal Courts of Justice".

[12][13] The Law Journal, however, cautiously welcomed the appointment, noting his professional experience, knowledge of business, and high character, though it also commented that "probably Mr. Lawrance does affect to be a great lawyer".

"[14] The case for which Lawrance achieved lasting notoriety was Rose v Bank of Australasia (1891), which involved a complex issue of general average contribution from cargo-owners.

Scrutton described Lawrance was "a very popular Judge—who had practised in a purely agricultural county, and whose elevation was not wholly unconnected with his devoted services to his party".

[15] Sir Frank MacKinnon, who was later Scrutton's pupil, reported that:The judge knew as much about the principles of general average as a Hindoo about figure-skating.

Not having the least idea what the point was, he pulled himself together and said: 'Oh, yes; I meant to say that having considered that I think the adjusters took the right view, and in that respect also I think the claim as made out by them ought to succeed'.

[2] This account has been largely accepted by modern commentators such as R. F. V. Heuston and Sir Roger Toulson, although some recent writers have argued that this was either something of an exaggeration or remains unproven.

[4] In 1898, he tried the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Burtsev and the typesetter Klement Wierzbicki for publishing a pamphlet which called for the murder of Nicholas II.

He was not the worst judge I have appeared before: that distinction I would assign to Mr. Justice Ridley [another Conservative MP controversially elevated by Halsbury].

[13] The Times commented that:In the conduct of a trial with a jury he was usually patient and reasonable, and as a Criminal Judge he appears to have had no prepossession either towards undue severity or a flabby leniency.

[24] Another otherwise critical account credited him with "prudence and self-restraint, and is irreproachable in word and act, and is, in fact, liked and admired for many qualities.

"[21] On his retirement, The Law Journal commented that although this "has not seriously reduced the judicial store of erudition, it has deprived the King's Bench Division of one of its most attractive personalities.