LAW ASSOCIATION SHOULD SHUT UP

Here’s an old one: “What do you call 3,000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean? A good start.” Lawyers might find it profitable to wonder why there are more jokes about them than people in any other profession — including politicians. Not that most lawyers would waste time wondering about such an issue, of course, since the profit we speak of is not the kind that interests them. However, the Law Association’s most recent statement does provide a clue as to why people hold lawyers in so little esteem.

Following the publication of a weekly newspaper’s report on the Chief Justice controversy, the Law Association council issued a release calling on the Director of Public Prosecutions to “investigate and institute proceedings where appropriate against some of these media houses for the scurrilous, scandalous and unwarranted personal attacks on the judges of the Supreme Court, which are calculated to bring the judges, the judiciary and the administration of justice into disrepute.” Law Association president Russell Martineau added that the council was “appalled at the deteriorating standards of what passes for reporting in the media.”

Now we are certainly not going to pretend that the media are free of warts. Indeed, the news story that so incensed the Law Association was admittedly the most unprofessional kind of journalism: based solely on hearsay from anonymous sources and with a sexual slant and should not have been published. But, as an institution, the media possesses a trait unique among all four estates: we allow outsiders to criticise us within our own halls. This is not true of executive, church, and certainly not the judiciary. Indeed, for the entire existence of the Law Association, has any lawyer ever been disciplined for misconduct? No wonder, then, that the public perceives the Law Association as existing only to protect its members rather than to inform and enlighten the wider society.

This is what leads to lawyers having an almost unique position among professionals: they enjoy status but little respect. In Trinidad and Tobago, this is also true of doctors, but that is mainly the result of self-inflicted wounds. Lawyers, however, have pretty much the same bad reputation in every society. In a sense, this is quite curious, since lawyers are essential to the effective functioning of any modern society, and moreso for a developing one. But, for citizens to understand the importance of legal practitioners, the lawyers must display a social conscience. There are, it is true, individual lawyers in Trinidad and Tobago, who have made it their business to pursue good causes without self-aggrandisement being their primary motive. But these persons can be counted on your fingers.

It is telling that, when the controversy involving Chief Justice Sat Sharma first broke, not one lawyer was willing to give the media a comment: not even to help the public understand the legal ramifications. Protecting their own backs was the rule of the day. In similar fashion, the Law Association council seems to believe that matters involving the high-and-mighty should be treated behind closed doors rather than exposed to the hoi polloi, who may then lose respect for their betters.

In fact, what undermines a society is precisely when its leaders are not constrained by public opinion, and when its leaders do not feel obligated to the society as a whole.  The Law Association, as a leading group, often remains silent on matters where their knowledge and wisdom would be useful and welcome. Such silence, contrasted with the vehemence of the Association’s latest statement, could reasonably lead to the conclusion that the Association’s members remain silent mainly because they are reluctant to give free legal advice. The Law Association should be the last organisation in this country  to talk about falling standards.