I have been thinking about the difference between patronage and mentorship. Patronage: a person gathers followers, who are rewarded for support. Those who do not support the patron are marginalised. Cf mentorship: guidance of juniors without an expectation of support.

As an academic, I have never wanted to be a patron. I *DO* try to be a mentor: assist without any expectation of support. I don’t mind if people disagree with me: in fact, as long as it’s polite and sensible, I welcome it. How am I to learn otherwise?

It strikes me that patronage can be really damaging when the patron wields considerable power. I don’t actually know, but I wonder if part of the issue involving Heydon was that he was such a patron. He could make or destroy your career.

I think we have to think carefully about patronage in the law and in academia. Do we really want to give an individual that much power? Maybe it’s a natural thing that happens: but I am suggesting we should be wary of it.

I have never had a patron (mainly because I don’t follow ANYONE’S directions). I have had plenty of excellent mentors. Mentors are good. But we need to distinguish between patronage and mentorship.