Who directs the off-screen action?

Lawyers are busier than ever behind the TV cameras. The fear of litigation, it seems, too often determines what is broadcast.

Kavanagh QC, LA Law, Rumpole of the Bailey, Clive Anderson - lawyers make "good TV". But while once their influence was just in front of the camera, today's TV lawyers are powerful behind the scenes, too. And it's not just the obvious matter of protecting news and current affairs programming from complaint. Increasingly, sitcoms and even TV dramas must gain the legal department's stamp of approval before transmission.

"The status of the TV lawyer is changing," says Susan Aslan, a partner in the multimedia group of the lawyers DJ Freeman. "In the past, the legal department was viewed as a hurdle to get over. Not now. Lawyers are seen as part of the production process, people to assist a programme getting on air. It's more creative."

Gone are the days when the legal department simply dealt with staff contracts and TV rights. Today its brief spans agreements with stars, would-be Gladiators and production staff, insurance, repeat fees, licensing performers for public appearance or merchandise tie-ins, deals with contracted suppliers, even the sale of programmes overseas. And, more to the point, it's playing a greater role in how programmes are made.

There are more than 100 lawyers regularly working with British TV companies, industry estimates suggest. Larger broadcasters field full-time in-house legal teams of five or six. Most have one or two dedicated to production. Working closely with programme-makers and commissioning editors, lawyers are getting involved at all stages of a programme's evolution, from initial concept to early development, through production, transmission and beyond. When things go wrong, they clean up the mess.

"We're involved in more programmes because of the increasingly litigious atmosphere in which we live," says Glenn Del Medico, head of programme legal advice for the BBC.

While in the Sixties and Seventies, TV figures such as David Frost pioneered a new genre of programme - trial by television - in the Nineties, the tables are being turned. Today's TV companies are broadcasting to an increasingly vocal public. Recent reports published by the Independent Television Commission show a steady rise in the number of viewers' complaints; a result of growing militancy rather than inaccuracy, broadcasters insist.

"People have always been willing to challenge broadcasters. Now there's greater opportunity for those who are unhappy to go to the law or quasi- legal bodies for recourse," says Channel 4 programme director John Willis. Larger companies and industries are fast becoming media tacticians seeking professional advice at an earlier stage, adds the World in Action editor Steve Boulton: "There's a number of small, motivated PR advisers who alert companies, encouraging them to strike first."

This culture of complaint is exacerbated by changing programme tastes, says Don Christopher, controller of compliance and legal affairs at Carlton Television. "On ITV, in particular, a lot of the old early evening comedy slots have been replaced by factual programmes, from Blues and Twos to Police, Camera, Action." Both feature fly-on-the-wall footage of suspects and alleged misdemeanours; each poses potential problems with libel, contempt of court and invasion of privacy.

Avoidance is key. At the BBC, five lawyers preview a broad range of programming before transmission. Apart from obvious candidates such as Panorama and Watchdog, drama is a large area, Del Medico says: "We check all productions dealing with real-life figures or based on real people or situations which, inevitably, many do." This ranges from the inadvertent use of real names, addresses and telephone numbers in fiction to what is legally acceptable in "docudrama".

A typical day's work for the solicitor Vimish Gandesha, who joined Sky Television 18 months ago, ranges from checking scripts to advising on the latest film acquisitions, tying up merchandising deals to approving promotional copy or fine-tuning new channel launches. He, too, must vet "reality" productions such as the police show Coppers.

"With cameras filming arrests, dangers include libelling suspects subsequently found innocent," he says.

"Lawyering" has become a fact of life even before production starts. "An earlier involvement means a smaller chance of having problems at the end of the production process," says Jan Tomalin, a legal adviser at Channel 4. "When you're making a TV programme, it's much harder - and more costly - to change it later in the day."

Yet despite these precautions, legal challenges arise. In most cases, this amounts to little more than a verbal threat, according to one ITV lawyer: "It's hard to say exactly what proportion actually end up in court, but we receive many more threats than actions are pursued."

Others are driven by the need to clear their name by proving the broadcaster was wrong - such as Jani Allan, the South African journalist who sued Channel 4 in 1992 for alleging, in the Nick Broomfield documentary The Leader, His Drive and the Driver's Wife, that she had had a relationship with the South African neo-Nazi leader Eugene Terre Blanche. She failed.

Some reach settlement before it gets to court - such as the Italian restaurateur Gino Santin who was paid an estimated pounds 500,000 by the BBC over allegations in a Panorama programme about Terry Venables. Venables also began proceedings to sue; the situation remains unresolved.

Successful challenges can cost the broadcaster dear. The courts set libel compensation to match the scale of exposure: a broadcast allegation can reach millions. When Anita and Gordon Roddick successfully sued Channel 4 and the independent producer Fulcrum Productions over allegations about Body Shop products made in a Dispatches programme, they won pounds 274,000 in damages. Channel 4 and Fulcrum were also ordered to pay pounds l.5m costs.

Of course, broadcasters take out insurance against legal claims. But the emphasis is still on avoidance. Ask if this makes TV companies more cautious and the answer is a resounding no. "Lawyers give programme-makers and commissioning editors legal advice," says Willis. "There is a clear division between this and editorial decision-making, It is an enabler, not a disabler."

Boulton insists: "Our lawyers don't drive what we do. They advise on potential pitfalls."

Even so, some warn the law can be used to stifle free speech. Last year, the BBC was stopped by the courts from screening a Panorama interview with John Major the night before the Scottish elections. The Labour Party was up in arms. Tony Hall, managing director of BBC news and current affairs, warned it could set a dangerous precedent - an "objectors' charter", enabling disgruntled politicians to silence legitimate debate.

Others claim the law is already used by some as a form of editorial control. When Christopher Hird, a director at Fulcrum Productions, made a recent film about Andrew Lloyd Webber, the composer refused to grant any copyright for a programme made without his consent.

"You can only be brave so many times," another producer explains. "We're a small company. I try not to let the obvious risks dictate the programmes I make, but it's an inevitable consideration." Dealing with in-house TV lawyers can also prove problematic, he adds. "Our concern is the best interests of the programme; they have broader, corporate concerns." This is widely perceived to be the case at the BBC where one of the side-effects of the John Birt regime and his "mission to explain" is the corporation's repositioning as a broadcaster geared towards making a profit without making trouble.

The ultimate danger is that certain subjects become taboo - something a medium battered throughout the Eighties by successive governments and the Murdoch press must be ever prepared to avoid. Of course, a programme's content must be justifiable, says Rod Gilchrist, managing director of Kensington Films, which made controversial docudrama Beyond Reason. But legal advice, he argues, is by its very nature defensive.

"In the future, when presented with stories of a provocative and controversial nature, broadcasters will shy away. It's a lot of work and a lot of problems. Lawyers always err on the side of caution - and I think they will increasingly do so."

TV LEGAL CASES WON, LOST AND PENDING

February 1996: the investigative journalist Duncan Campbell wins damages and a full apology from the Broadcasting Complaints Commission after suing them for libel. Convicted criminal Derek Donaldson, who featured in Campbell's 1993 programme A Tale of Two Cities, claimed he was unfairly treated. In November 1994, the BCC upheld his complaint. Campbell sued and won.

January 1996: Marks & Spencer issued a writ for libel against Granada's World in Action investigation into M&S's business practices.

December 1995: PC Christopher Wright and PC Peter Callaghan were awarded pounds 12,500 and pounds 4,000 damages respectively in libel damages after a BBC programme, Race Hate UK, portrayed them as racist. The BBC also paid costs estimated at pounds 200,000.

April 1995: the Conservative MP Jonathan Aitken issued writs against Granada's World in Action and the Guardian. The situation is unresolved.

September 1994: Sunday Times solicitor Alastair Brett received damages and an apology from Channel 4 and the makers of Hard News. The programme had criticised Brett's defence of a libel action against the newspaper brought by Carmen Proetta, a witness to the SAS shooting of three IRA terrorists in Gibraltar in 1988.

October 1994: the forensic scientist Dr Frank Skuse, whose evidence helped to convict the Birmingham Six, dropped his libel action against a Granada programme that portrayed him as negligent, claiming lack of funds.

May 1994: the US manufacturer of the sleeping drug Halcion won pounds 60,000 damages against the BBC for a 1991 Panorama programme. The BBC also paid costs of pounds 1.5m - equivalent to the cost of 13 editions of Panorama.