The new law proposed by the government to regulate the legal profession is “unacceptable” as it is a far cry from what had been discussed with lawyers prior to its publication.
The Bill to amend the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure and the Commission for the Administration of Justice Act include provisions aimed at regulating the profession but come nowhere close to it, Chamber of Advocates president Louis DeGabriele told Times of Malta.
“We think the Bill as proposed by the justice minister does not effectively address regulating the profession. Half-baked? Well, I think it’s less than half-baked.
“It is patching something that should have been dealt with differently. I’m still at a loss on why the government went ahead with this watered-down version,” DeGabriele said when contacted.
He explained that it was the chamber that drafted the first draft of the Bill and the government went back to the chamber with a version that contained changes to some of the main provisions, principally dealing with some regulatory issues.
The chamber accepted the government’s policy shift but then it was faced with a completely different version to the one it had agreed upon in discussions with the government, he noted.
“The chamber is amazed that, now, the government has made a complete volte face and decided to go down a completely different route, on which the chamber was never consulted. The reasons for this sudden and radical change in approach remain unexplained and, indeed, inexplicable,” DeGabriele said.
Well... I think it’s less than half baked
He added that the government was now proposing the setting up of a committee for advocates and legal procurators, which was originally going to have a chairman chosen by the government, to which they objected vociferously and which the government immediately accepted to change.
It will now be a retired judge.
Asked whether he felt the Bill was meant to satisfy Moneyval requirements, DeGabriele said he felt it did not.
“I do not think it satisfied what Moneyval want of us because they would like us to ensure that people entering the profession pass a fit and proper test. In the absence of having it in principal legislation, you need to have some defining what fit and proper means. The new Bill does not address this,” he said.
Another structural deficiency, he pointed out, is that the new committee is designed as a disciplinary board and not a regulatory body as the chamber had originally wanted it to be.
Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis insisted, however, that the proposed Bill will be regulating the legal profession in a more holistic manner.
“The Commission for the Administration of Justice is being strengthened,” he said in reply to questions on the matter.
“The structures and functioning of the same commission remain the same. Moreover, [the] Bill does address the Moneyval recommendations and is the only pertinent Bill which is relevant to the Moneyval recommendations,” he added.
“The government sought to strike a balance between the wishes of the Chamber of Advocates and of the majority of practising legal professionals, even non-members of the chamber.”
The Bill, Zammit Lewis said, shall go through “all the established parliamentary process, which include a structured dialogue during different parliamentary stages”.