Modernizing the bar ?

Editorial of the President of the Bar - 2 December 2022

Dear colleagues,

There are some concepts that we are bound to endorse. Modernization is one of them. Pronouncing this word is enough to discourage any contrary inclination. Anyone who opposes it must immediately face a suit for obsolescence. And yet. What's in a name? It is not the label that counts but the content. Because, yes, my dear colleagues, our Minister of Justice wishes to modernize our profession and has presented his project to the bar associations at the community level, as explained by the president of Avocats.be in his editorial of December 1st.

It is certainly premature to examine and comment on the proposals formulated by the Minister considering that they have only been defined in broad strokes, with very general guidelines. To me, it seems much more important that, before any concrete proposal, we agree on what modernizing the legal profession means.

If it is a matter of reinforcing the essential characteristics of our profession – rigorous ethics and excellence – by giving the authorities of the Bar the necessary means and by modifying the legislative framework, I will sign up for that. We will submit to you, Minister, concrete proposals and ambitious projects.

If it is a matter of having the audacity to fundamentally review the access to law and justice for all so that it is more effective and that it allows better management of needs, of people and of a decent compensation for lawyers, regardless of the financial resources of their clients, of the nature of the case or of its complexity, I applaud it. Despite all the efforts – it should be emphasized – made to strengthen the current legal aid system, despite the obvious merits of the insurance for legal protection, the effectiveness of access to advice, conciliation and legal defense remains imperfect. Isn't it time to have the courage to offer (almost) universal coverage by establishing an eighth branch of our social security system? “Utopic in the current context”, I have heard for thirty years, but let us remember this quote from Mark Twain: "They did not know it was impossible, so they did it".

If it is a matter of reinforcing the essential guarantees required for lawyers to exercise their mission of general interest within a democratic rule of law, independence, self-regulation and professional secrecy, I agree without reservation.

If it is finally a matter of adapting the Judicial Code in order to allow the authorities of the Bar to redefine their rules of governance so that they can in the future harmonize their professional rules for all of Belgium, adapt more quickly and more effectively to the constant developments of society and speak with one voice, I will be delighted. The current organization of the profession in two bar associations at the community level and approximately twenty bar associations at the local level, in addition to the Supreme Court bar association (barreau de cassation) has, despite the goodwill of all, created useless centrifugal forces. However, today more than yesterday, it is important for the profession to bring together its resources, to have the same ethical rules and to speak with one voice. It is time to think about another form of governance that may meet these objectives.

I am convinced, Minister, that we can agree on these principles, and you have already indicated that you will listen to the Bar, and that this reform will be carried out in perfect understanding with it.

Remember, however, who we are and what our role is. As institutional checks and balances, our profession is not like the others. The independence that we claim, in the individual and collective exercise of our profession, is not a whim; it is the expression of our deep attachment to the values of the rule of law which imply that the lawyer remains independent regard to any power, official or not. Put your trust in us.

As for us, my dear colleagues, we will have to be audacious, creative and find a new balance between efficiency and legitimacy. We do not see, in principle, in the proposal of the Minister of Justice, an attack on our self-regulation, but an extended hand, an incentive to dare to propose bold and lasting reforms to the government and Parliament, in the ultimate interest of those to whom we are mandatory confidants and, very often, the official spokespersons in their relations with justice.

Emmanuel Plasschaert,

president