Rumpole of the Bailey deserves to take his place among the great barristers of literature. Like Trollope's Chaffanbrass he knows nothing of the law…. Like Dickens's Serjeant Buzfuz he plies his trade on behalf of worthless clients by telling each new jury that never before has he approached a case with such feelings of deep emotion and heavy responsibility…. The stories written by John Mortimer about Rumpole are already classics of legal literature, at least in the same class as A. P. Herbert's Uncommon Law and Theo Mathew's Forensic Fables. (p. 789)

[Regina V. Rumpole] contains several more short tales and one longer story. It will give further satisfaction to those who know Horace Rumpole and will provide a perfect introduction for anyone who has yet to make his acquaintance.

In addition to Rumpole, the entire cast of legal London is portrayed in caricatures that are wickedly accurate…. John Mortimer's style enables him to deflate any ego with a well-aimed sentence. When Rumpole 'applied a torn-off page of the Criminal Law Review to the electric fire and lit the small cigar', the value of academic lawyers to the practitioner is effectively demonstrated.

Part of the joy of these stories is the very accurate description they present of the lower judiciary in England. If Mortimer, or anyone else, published such accounts of named judges, an action for contempt of court would be likely to ensue. Only in legal memoirs or in 'fiction' does the convention permit one to evoke the villains on the Bench. The judges before whom Rumpole appears are perverse and, often, biased; they are ignorant of the ways of the world; and they are deferential or rude to witnesses depending on the status of those who have the misfortune to give evidence before them. Only a counsel of Rumpole's experience (and lack of ambition) can afford to reply in kind to the discourtesy emanating from the Bench. The reasons for the inadequacy of those who sit in judgment are explored. Appointment to the Bench depends not on satisfying defined criteria, but on being recommended to the Lord Chancellor's Office. (pp. 789-90)

Rumpole himself remains something of an enigma. He has his failures in court, but he frequently displays remarkable powers of advocacy; he is a shrewd judge of character; and he often has judges eating out of his hand. Moreover, he exercises powers of detection that would do credit to Scotland Yard. Yet we are asked to believe that he is a hack barrister whose career has never progressed. High-class crooks should be queuing up to secure the services of such a wizard of the courts.

The world of Rumpole is partly fictitious. Although the guilty are sometimes acquitted, it is very rare for Rumpole to see the innocent convicted. Furthermore, at the end of his cases (and often well before the end, by reason of his intuition) Rumpole finds out what really happened. The adversary process of a real trial more often leaves the truth mysteriously hidden, covered over by the evasions and half-truths of competing contentions. However, if the Rumpole stories, and the advocacy of their chief protagonist, may occasionally fail to convince, they are never less than a delight. (p. 790)