For the past two days, you've been hearing what the Bar Association has to say about the proposed legal profession amendment bill. Not surprisingly, they don't like it one bit - and both the President and Former president of the bar have rejected various parts of it. One of their criticisms is that the new breakdown of the members lends itself to direct political control by the Attorney General. That's what Bar President Eamon Courtenay said - and yesterday AG Elrington told us he's far from reality:
Hon. Wilfred Elrington, Attorney General
"The truth is that what he said has no relation to reality whatsoever. There is a provision for the appointment of the members of the council and 3 of the members of the council are going to be nominated by the Bar Association and appointed by me. Somebody has to appoint them. The Bar Association doesn't have the locus standi to appoint them, but that is my authority, so I will appoint the 3 members appointed by the Bar. Tell me how it will be political if in fact the Bar Association appoints 3 and nominates 3 and I appoint those who ae nominated, how can that be political? Now tell me how it will be more political if I take myself away from the entire process and leave the chief justice to do it?"
Another argument centers on the dispute over whether compulsory membership in the bar deprives attorneys of freedom of association. That's what government believes and that's why under the new law, those attorneys will no longer have to be members of the bar. But, attorneys Rodwell Williams and Godfrey Smith put out an opinion or the bar association last year saying that because the bar serves a public purpose the freedom of association principle does not necessarily apply. Smith and Williams are tow leading lights of the PUP and UDP - both Elrington says theirs is just an opinion:..
Hon. Wilfred Elrington, Attorney General
"I will tell you of two bar associations that have looked at; the one in Jamaica and the one in Barbados. The one in Jamaica doesn't make it mandatory for attorneys to members of the bar association and that is the best performing one, its the model for the Caribbean. They are doing wonderful work. The one in Barbados make it compulsory because the argument is raise that what the bar association in Barbados does is work which is similar to that which is done by a public entity because it probably has responsibility for legal aid, it has responsibility for continuing education of the lawyers, it has responsibility for discipline of the lawyers and the like. That's not the case in Belize at all. The Belize Bar Association wants to have nothing to do with the legal aid system; makes no attempt to help anybody who is incarcerated in prison; makes no attempt to do continuing legal education for the attorneys and I have complain about that over and over; makes no attempt to educate the public on national importance' makes no attempt to take over the accounts of attorneys who die during practice and makes sure that citizens are in fact properly protected once the attorneys die and they can take over their business - none of that is done by the local Bar Association. The Bar Association collects I would want to think in excess of $30,000 each year in fees and nobody knows what they do with it`. So the opinion of Godfrey Smith, Rodwell Williams is just that - opinion, but each opinion have got to be looked at in its context. It's not gospel and it's only their view."
Email
Print