They started by asking if it was a good idea for lawyers to speak to the press and offer their own opinions in relation to the case rather than simply speaking for the client. For example "my client says he is innocent of all charges" vs "I believe that my client is innocent of all charges"
Mark Stephens was saying that solicitors working high profile cases needed to be able to make statements on the court steps because the media demand instant comment. However he did admit that he had probably gone too far in offering his own opinion at times - blamed lack of sleep. He also noted that solicitors have to market themselves and news appearances were effectively free advertising.
They also interviewed some solicitor regulator guy who seemed concerned that if this trend continues we could end up with trials resembling that of OJ Simpson!
Apparenty barristers are currently precluded from speaking about a case unless under specific instruction from their client, but this rule was under review. Many saw it as linked to the "cab rank" rule that prevents barristers from refusing work that they are qualified and available to do.
They had a barrister give his opinion on the assange case - he reckoned that it was unlikely that they would prevent extradition, but that Thursday's judgement was most likely to be appealed either way and this would probably be heard in the summer. He also seemed to think that, if the US requested extradition on more serious charges, that the UK government would put this above the Swedish case.
They also interviewed a lawyer from the US government who basically said that there was no difference between extradition from Sweden the UK. She said there was no chance of him being sent to Guantanimo Bay as it's being closed down and that they always undertake not to seek the death penalty in all extradition cases.
The finished with some guff about Twitter that I didn't bother listening to.