|
|
|
|
Words
Aplenty, Action Absent The recently held two-day Commemorative Conference, to mark the 40th year of the Advocates Act, gave an opportunity to the members of the profession to deliberate on the law which regulates their profession.
Law is a profession in which learning is a continuous process. Many might have felt that attending the meet would be a waste of time and perhaps the delegate fee was a factor that kept some away. More lawyers might have attended the conference had it been free. Seeing some unregistered delegates sneak in, to enjoy the buffet and the proceedings of the convention on the second day, was hardly surprising. What can we do about the bigger problem of ethics afflicting our profession if we cannot resist the temptation for every possible freebie. Much was said about the judiciary and the behaviour of judges. We all know that the independence of judiciary exists in theory and that the ground reality is quite a different story. As long as politicians have a direct or indirect say in the appointments, promotions and transfers of judges, the absolute integrity of the judiciary may be a distant reality. Advocates fees were deliberated. I see nothing wrong in advocates charging high fees in relation to the quality and level of service they provide. What is not acceptable is conniving with the lawyer of the opposite party while you leave your client in the lurch. The issue of internship and the treatment of Senior vis-a-vis Junior lawyers was also discussed. Law today is evolving so rapidly that if you spend a decade doing these odd tasks and merely putting appearances for adjournments you may be doing tasks you could have performed with perfection by merely being a matriculate. The conference was unanimous that deterrent action has to be taken against erring advocates. But how will we act if we do not have the will or the desire needed to curb something the public witness for themselves. A lady delegate from Delhi narrate to me how unruly and vulgarly lawyers in some northern states behave towards lady judges in particular. Advocates terrorise these lady judges to extract orders/judgements in their favour. Thank God that we live in a State where the state of affairs has not degenerated to such depths yet.
The second and final day of the meet was very enlightening. The comanizers made sure that more room was created for floor participation, which is a key to the success of any conference. Honesty and integrity are the two keys of our noble profession. It is not enough to say that we are honest. This is something the public has to certify and counter certify by seeing our integrity. The profession has to encourage and aid Juniors to move on. Today, we see more Juniors than litigants in the Courts. However, it's a pleasure seeing that members of our profession today come from all strands of society. Life is always easier if you have a lawyer in the immediate family and life may be sometimes even more comforting if you have a judge in the family. On the other hand, having no one with legal links may be a blessing in disguise, who knows! The Seniors should realise that they were all Juniors one day. You have to learn by mistakes as long as the mistake you commit does not cost your client his case. We live in a free society and no profession should be the monopoly or domain of the "few Big Boys". The profession demands care and compassion not only to your client but also to the members of the profession, in particular the new entrants. Ethics dominated the agenda of the Conference. Speaker after speaker spoke how the public hold lawyers in low esteem. Every speaker also felt that something radical would have to happen to enable people to respect the members of the legal fraternity. The Advocates Act was discussed and scrutinised in detail. The sections were dissected and a post-mortem conducted by legal luminaries. But we all like to do the talking. For these ills to be a matter of the past, someone would have to act to transform words into action. We as lawyers ought to discharge our duties and ensure that all our acts are performed dutifully and trustworthily. We wear white shirts. We owe it to our profession that our conscience never turns out to have even a tinge of the colour of our trousers. Legal aid and legal awareness did find its place at the conference but little has happened to change things radically in this area. The legal channels and forums must be more affordable and expedited so that the weak and vulnerable do not further lose their hope and faith in the judicial system. There was a general consensus that the legal profession was at a crossroads but what was not clear is who will address the issues and how. Passing resolutions would be yet another piece of paper, which will be meaningless in reality. The conference felt that the local Bar Associations should take stringent and deterrent steps to enforce ethics. But with so much of bickering and internal rivalry within the Associations the enforcement of a code of ethics may remain merely in print. If there was one prize to be awarded for capably comanising the Conference the unanimous choice of every delegate would be Lalit Bhasin, Honorary Secretary, Bar Association of India. Fali Nariman's periodical intercessions during the conference kept the audience in a state of humour. The entire proceedings were conducted in an atmosphere of great decorum, sans any personal attacks. Everyone agreed that a problem existed and one created by someone else. In this context I refer to a retired Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on a visit to Goa who recently spoke as to how rotten the whole judicial system is. What did he do to improve it when he was a part of the same system? It is always easy to criticise but one should have the courage and conviction to spit at and speak out instead of being a party to things one does not concur with. For things to change there has to be a will and desire to take action otherwise we may be part of yet another talking exercise on the same theme for another 40 years. Aires
Rodrigues |
THE conference of advocates held at the Goa
Marriott Resort last month dwelt at length on the various
shortcomings of the Advocates Act, 1961, and suggested remedial
steps to be taken to bring the Act in tune with the changing times.
The conference, though well attended, had room for the crowded
profession that we are in. It was an excellent opportunity to listen
to the legal pundits and meet professional colleagues hailing from
different parts of India. 
The inaugural function of the conference was
captivating. All speeches and that of the Union Law Minister, Arun
Jaitley in particular, were packed with substance and punch. Chief
Minister Manohar Parrikar's remark that Goa had a bar for every 25
families, however, seemed to be a statement totally out of
place.