It is a constitutional dispute that has rocked the tiny colony of Gibraltar amid allegations of judicial misbehaviour, libel and demands that its most senior judge be sacked.

Derek Schofield, the Chief Justice, has been suspended on full pay by the Govenor of Gibraltar after a series of allegations culminating in calls by the colony’s four leading law firms for Judge Schofield’s removal from office.

Coverage of the row has mostly been concentrated in the tiny three-square-mile peninsula. Now, though, it will reach a wider audience with the appointment of Clifford Chance, the world’s largest law firm, as solicitors to the tribunal of inquiry into the affair.

Michael Smyth, head of public policy, will lead the team to the tribunal chaired by Lord Cullen of Whitekirk (he also chaired the inquiries into the Piper Alpha disaster and Dunblane shooting tragedy), sitting with the retired Court of Appeal judges Sir Jonathan Parker and Sir Peter Gibson.

Clifford Chance confirmed its appointment this week saying that the "inquiry follows the suspension of the Chief Justice Derek Schofield". Three weeks of public hearings are scheduled to start on July 7.

The firm is not alone: the dispute has drawn in a list of top names from the UK legal profession: Tim Otty, QC, is counsel to the inquiry, Bindmans and Edward Fitzgerald, QC, are acting for the Chief Justice, and James Eadie, QC, for the Government of Gibraltar.

At its root is a clash — sounding all too familiar — between the powers of the judiciary and the executive. Justice Schofield is opposed to the Judicial Service Act, passed by the Gibraltar Government last July, which strips the Chief Justice of the role of head of the judiciary.

The role has been handed to the head of the colony’s Court of Appeal, held at present by Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, a retired UK Court of Appeal judge. In October Sir Murray, in his new capacity, donned ceremonial robes for the formal opening of the legal year — even as Chief Justice Schofield was seeking to have the ceremony called off.

The change — an interesting contrast to the recent constitutional reforms in Britain that confirmed the Lord Chief Justice as head of the judiciary — was agreed by Britain and Gibraltar, as part of its new constitution, accepted by referendum in November 2006.

But Judge Schofield has consistently opposed the reform, saying that the new framework threatened the independence of the judiciary.

The dispute does not end there. The Chief Justice’s wife, Anne, also became embroiled after castigating Peter Caruana, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, for adopting the reforms. They were, she said: “An attempted rape of the Gibraltar Constitution and the Chief Justice’s Office and contract.”

She then sent an e-mail to the chairman of the Gibraltar Bar Council, James Neish, QC, saying: “In my view it [the reform] is intended to force the resignation of the Chief Justice, unless he accepts demotion, or to force him to sue, in which case we shall hear calls for him to resign.”

The balloon went up. The Bar questioned what it regarded as unwarranted interference by her and she responded with a writ for libel. In turn, four leading law firms wrote to Sir Robert Fulton, the colony’s governor, demanding the removal of the Chief Justice.

The judge was appointed in 1996 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but his £95,725 salary is paid for by the Gibraltar Government. He will strongly resist any suggestion that his behaviour begins to approach misconduct that would warrant dismissal. The fact of the inquiry at all, he may well argue, is itself an encroachment on judicial independence — not to mention an illustration of what the judiciary is up against.

At one point Justice Schofield was even bringing a judicial review to challenge the lawfulness of the reforms. But that action, in which David Pannick, QC, another UK silk, was acting for the Attorney-General of Gibraltar, has been dropped.

Tamsin Allen, of Bindman & Partners, the Chief Justice’s solicitors, says: “The position of the Chief Justice is that the complaint comes nowhere near the constitutional threshold for the discipline of a judge, let alone the removal of a Chief Justice.”

The four leading law firms are likely to raise a series of episodes, all cited in a report by the International Commission of Jurists, to support their claim, including one going back to 1999 when Judge Schofield expressed his views in the media that government control over funding could affect the administration of justice; a complaint by his housekeeper that she was being paid below the statutory minimum wage (no formal action against the judge was taken); and an incident when the Chief Justice was stopped by a police officer and found not to have had a valid MoT vehicle registration.

Whatever the outcome in July, as Dominique Searle, the editor of the Gibraltar Chronicle who has maintained a detailed commentary on events, wrote recently: “There can be no winners.”

Even if the Chief Justice’s behaviour had been impeccable, he — and all involved — should reflect on what course of action would be best. The jurisdiction is too small to survive the constant tension that might continue if the judge remained, he says. But equally: “It also remains true that it would be unjust if an honourable career were wrecked because of such a circumstance.”

Lawyers, and judges, he says, should be the last people to embroil themselves in a dispute or approach the legal process “like a chess game — at public expense”. Instead, he calls for a mediated settlement to allow both parties “to move on with dignity”. Nothing else is likely to ensure public confidence in the workings of the legal system.

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO