
"Ultimately, I was all teddy bear, having regrets about despatching the rest of the cast," Hugo told ROF.
Warning: Contains spoilers.
Barrister Hugo Lodge has told RollOnFriday he has "no regrets" after he was banished from hit BBC show The Traitors last week when he was undone by another, former, barrister who led the case against him.
The show's host, Claudia Winkleman, had selected Hugo as a traitor, tasking him with undermining his fellow players' attempts to flush him out.
While some players have hidden their professions in case they're used against them - another contestant has kept schtum about being a retired police detective - Hugo decided to tell everyone that he was a barrister.

Taking a cold-blooded approach should be a busman's holiday for some barristers.
A 'faithful' contestant, Harriet Tyce, chose not to reveal the fact that she was an ex-barrister turned crime writer, saying it would make her a "huge target". Instead, she put one on Hugo's back.

Ex-barrister Harriet (left) demonstrates the professional courtesy between briefs.
At the round table, Harriet highlighted Hugo's job to put the heat on him. "It has occurred to me from the moment I found out that you were a barrister, that you would be a prime target for the traitors to take out. You have experience of cross-examination, you are good at presenting your case, and you're highly articulate. So I had in my mind, as I came into breakfast this morning, if you had survived [the first night's murder], that really raised big questions in my mind", she said.
Still managing to keep a straight face, the former barrister added: "A number of people also said they were intimidated by your professional position, to take you on. These are hard facts as far as I'm concerned."
Harriet also accused Hugo of "overacting" in a "hammy" speech at breakfast, when he exclaimed to the whole table that it was "beyond mean" that the traitors had murdered a player.
Following a vote by the players at the round table, Hugo was duly banished from the game and revealed he was a traitor, prompting legal commentators online to praise Harriet's tactics:

Hugo spoke to RollOnFriday about his experience on the show and #Barristergate.
RoF: What made you want to apply for the show?
Hugo: I love the Traitors and have seen every series in the English language to date. As a kid I was into amateur dramatics and musical theatre. The Traitors is a wonderful mix of this, set in a beautiful Scottish castle, so I thought why not?
You came across as a good sport about leaving, but did you feel a bit aggrieved that you were banished so early on?
You of course play to win, but I was relieved to be banished. It was fun to take a hugely high-risk approach, channelling Guy Fawkes and Phantom of the Opera, and I loved skulking around the castle in a cloak, but I did not enjoy despatching my new friends. I have made some great friends; you can see from my Uncloaked interview* that Ben and I are now really good mates.
Did you realise Harriet was a barrister and how did you feel when she went for you at the Round Table?
I take my wig off to Harriet. She made an unanswerable point, ‘you’re a senior professional so you would make a good Traitor. If you’re not a Traitor, why haven’t they murdered you?’. As soon as I told Claudia that I was willing to be upfront about my profession, I knew there would be a ‘target on my back’. The strategy was to be chaotic not slick, and to catch the Secret Traitor. I achieved one of those!
I felt in that moment that my best hope was to appeal to the hearts of the cast rather than deploy logic as attacking her would have underlined Harriet's point. I had aimed to be kind and supportive in the castle, and the fact that Jessie and Jade did vote as I suggested (against Amanda) showed that I had some traction. My only other thought was as this attack came right at the start of the Round Table, then it may be forgotten if I didn’t overdo the response. Ross then started to dig himself into a hole so there was a glimmer of hope.
But Fiona and then Stephen opened new lines of attack against me, so it was time to call a taxi and prepare for a dramatic exit, which I loved. The roof came off, I was happy for the cast, they had got one!
You said that you tried to treat the game like a "stage" rather than "a court". However, do you think that was an error, as other players, including Harriet, thought your breakfast speech about Ben was too "hammy"?
You most definitely can have too much ham at breakfast! That response to Ben leaving the show was too big for breakfast, or indeed TV. It’s an honour to join the ranks of Kas and Linda who have laid on too much cheese with a trowel at that table.
As for treating the castle like a stage - I have no regrets about going for chaos over slickness though - I challenge anyone to find me mentioning to any other cast member that I was a barrister. I once tried to laugh it off by saying I was a barista… I was rowing away from professional status to be a friendly / Dickens character as Ed Gamble* put it.
This bought me a couple of days. Had I found the red cloak that would have given me a couple more. I didn’t really assess my chances of winning as high, so wanted to enjoy every moment.
If you had your time again, what are the main things you would have done differently?
I would do the same again, minus excess ham at breakfast! I was keen to be a Traitor to get the whole turret experience. To secure that I felt I had to offer Claudia to go big and/or go home early. You owe it to the many people who applied to try to win. The other Traitors playing a more optimal strategy found my presence unsettling, understandably!
I knew I wanted to be a Traitor and felt that would be enough to remember to conceal. To lie about my profession would have been a trap. Also, I wanted to be every aspect of my personality on a daily basis, including the inner diva.
What did you think of the experience in the house? What was the atmosphere like with your fellow contestants?
The whole experience was really positive, and the castle is just stunning. All the cast are in touch on a Whatsapp group and there are no hard feelings. It’s been a pleasure to be able to do follow up media with the BBC, and ‘Uncloaked’ was a blast.
What advice would you give any lawyers who are thinking about applying to a future series of The Traitors?
I’d encourage any lawyer to do anything they have a passion for or find interesting / funny. We work long hours and years. My tutor, the late John Hopkins, said ‘What’s the point of doing anything unless it is fun?’
Would you do any other TV shows again, given the chance?
I’m going to let the dust settle on the Traitors for now. I very much enjoyed my fifteen minutes in the spotlight and my practice has become a lot more advisory so I may welcome the occasional chance to be a commentator on future Traitors episodes for example (if they’d have me).
Any other comment you wish to make?
I do NOT require middle management. Stay treacherous.
* 'Uncloaked' is hosted by Ed Gamble, whose father was the London Managing Partner of Hogan Lovells - the comedian therefore has an excellent insight into the character traits of lawyers.
Comments
31
29
A future as John Thompson's stunt man beckons...
37
33
Who else cringed when he did the rock and roll fingers when he was voted out?
39
26
An affable chap, but if I were him, I would have said to Harriet: "There have only been two murders, and just because I'm a barrister it doesn't mean I would automatically be one of the first people to be murdered. I don't know why they murdered Ben or Netty. They would have had their reasons, but as a faithful it's difficult to second-guess their motives for murder.
There could be various reasons why the traitors haven't murdered me. Maybe they don't see me as a threat, as perhaps I'm close to one or more of them. Or maybe they don't think I have that much influence etc.
Your argument also suggests that anyone putting forward a case in an articulate way, could put them at risk of being murdered by the traitors - which works against you (if you're not murdered) given that you have just made an argument in an articulate way. You don't have to be a barrister to be persuasive and perceived as a threat to the traitors.
I think you are underestimating other people around this table, including yourself, by saying that I should be the biggest threat to the traitors simply because of my job."
31
38
What an embarrassing man, but I cannot say I don't like him....
47
26
Agree with Anonymous @11:06. In not rebutting Harriet, his downfall was perhaps his ego allowing him to buy into the argument that barristers should be lauded as having some super power or advantage in the game, and thinking that was an "unanswerable point." When he could have made the point that other people's jobs, such as Rachel as head of communications, could arguably be as much of a threat when it comes to strategy, if you're trying to evaluate someone's skills based on their job title.
But all of that is nonsense anyway when it comes to Traitors. Jobs that people mistakenly assume would be good for the game (e.g. those older, experienced players who have had long careers in 'evidence gathering' and 'building a case' jobs, like lawyers or police detectives) actually don't count for much, when you look at the actual evidence of those who tend to fare well: see series winners and finalists (not just in UK, but also NZ, Australian and US series) Wilf in the first series played a blinder, right until the end. Harry won series 2, Alex won the Australian Series 1, Sam was amazingly devious in Australian Series 2 (albeit hubris at the end), and Bailey was the NZ Series 2 winner of Traitors (she was a wedding photographer). They were all young-ish players who didn't claim to have high-brow, intellectual jobs that would help them outsmart their opponents and crack the game. They weren't "senior professionals". Charm (backed up with cunning gameplay) was their greatest weapon.
The "senior professional" jobs, as Hugo puts it in his interview, not only don't count for much (based on performance across the many series so far), but it can often give people an inflated sense of their importance. Look at Amanda in this game, as a former police detective, who continually accused a faithful Jade, based on one reaction by Jade when she had her mask taken off (and didn't sway from that decision, based on any new information coming in). Amanda also got her facts wrong when accusing Sam (and implicating Reece) at the round table. And she also trusted a traitor, Rachel, the most to confide in her about her job.
It was very similar to Keith in the Australian Traitors Series 2, who was also rubbish at the game. He hid the fact that he was a decorated former detective, but when he made a big reveal of his job on his banishment, everyone just looked at him blankly, as if to say "what help was that?"
The irony is that those in evidence-based jobs, should look at the evidence of previous shows, which points to the charming Gen Z and millennials being more of a threat, than the experienced "senior professionals".
46
25
"Amanda in this game, as a former police detective, who continually accused a faithful Jade"
Watching Amanda lock on to Jade at the first round table and then commit herself to voting for her every single day thereafter, and seemingly doing absolutely nothing else useful at the table, has been uncomfortable to watch.
If a dude her age had done the same thing we'd be up in here calling it 'creepy' and blaming it on misogyny. If they were a police officer of some kind, double that.
Really weird tunnel-vision behaviour.
35
32
I liked Hugo. Given his love of theatre, surely he has to be in line for panto this year! I think Stephen even referred to him as a panto dame.
31
24
Yeah, the battle is won or lost at the round table, not just the incidents that lead up to it. So he should have fought his corner. That doesn’t mean he had to be aggressive in doing so. A simple quip to Harriet could have been: “It’s flattering that you think of me that way. But perhaps the traitors don’t view barristers, or indeed me, in such high regard. Or maybe they do, and it's a line they're using to try to banish me at the table...”
36
25
Traitors need to go with the flow & gently influence. Those that punch hard end up in trouble (remember that ginger Paul). Anyway, can't wait for tonight's Fight Night Fiona v Rachel. Rachel is the stereotype of 'worst HR manager in law". So to be feared.
27
32
@12.27 - you need to get a life
35
28
I've met Hugo - he was a gent. Thoroughly decent guy. It was good to see him on this. Wish him well for the future. And no, this isn't Hugo, before anyone says that!
40
31
Re Ed Gamble's comment about Hugo being like a Dickens character - he seemed very amiable and likeable on the show, so I reckon he's more of a Fezziwig than a Jaggers.
Interesting fact at the end about Ed Gamble's dad being London MP at Hogan Lovells. Link to the Danish boog sketch is very funny.
27
26
@15.45 - screw you Hugo! Gedoudahere!
37
28
@12.27 makes a good point. Also Joe Marler outperforming the supposedly brighter David Olusoga and Stephen Fry (and everyone else frankly) in being able to sniff out the traitors in the celeb version.
It would be good if in future shows players could be humble enough to say, "I am a detective / lawyer / psychologist / whatever etc but I realise that doesn't necessarily give me any advantage as everyone comes to the game with different attributes, some of which aren't job related".
But I think there's a touch of arrogance with certain people rating their profession too highly, as a way of believing they'll be smarter in a game like Traitors.
35
29
To be fair, he comes across well in this interview: doesn't take himself too seriously and no sour grapes about how he was banished.
32
23
Bad at the game but the player I’d most like to go for a pint with, as I reckon he’d much more of a laugh than most of them.
26
27
Was at college with Hugo many many years ago and did a few mock trials with him (well, he led them and we looked on) - agree with all the comments here (even inc the rock star fingers), he was wonderful company and he's not changed.