Professionalism and the CJ

We would expect no less from persons holding such important offices, but we were reassured to hear this from someone holding the high office of Chief Justice and to hear him asserting that no matter what else was going on, the AG, the DPP and himself were carrying out their duties as professionals. Professionalism still remains the exception rather than the rule in our society. This is so in two respects. The first is the inability to keep personal motives out of technical issues — that is, persons too often take action based on bias, friendships, or favouritism, rather than what is required by regulations, law, or even objectivity.

This is an ill which, as recent court decisions have proved, extends even to the office of the Prime Minister. And, while it is true that such factors play in all societies, the difference between developed and underdeveloped societies is that, in the former, professional standards exercise more sway than personal preferences in managing the society.

The other deficiency relates to the more common understanding of professionalism — competence. Here Sharma rightly trained his guns on the lawyers who fall under his aegis. Noting that standards in the profession had declined, the CJ remarked, "Often, we are astounded at what passes for advocacy." He observed that punctuality and courtroom behaviour left much to be desired and urged attorneys to "uphold the dignity and status of the profession."

Indeed, the CJ even went to far as to suggest that the Legal Profession Act should be amended so that lawyers would not be allowed to practise while before the court on a criminal charge. This suggestion is surely a non-starter, because it contravenes the fundamental principle of a person being innocent until proven guilty and because it would effectively deprive that individual of an income. But it is perhaps an ironic sign of the very lack of professionalism Sharma spoke about that no lawyer or even the Law Association has seen fit to comment on his suggestion.

Where Sharma was more on the ball was in his remark that the Disciplinary Committee was not functioning effectively when dealing with complaints about lawyers. He cited one case from the Privy Council which showed that the Committee had taken eight years to give a judgment in a case against a lawyer. This is obviously unacceptable.

Members of the public are too often ill-served by lawyers, who take their money with great efficiency but who do not always display a similar alacrity in seeing that their clients’ cases are resolved effectively or even within a reasonable time frame. It seems as though lawyers regard the mills of law as akin to God’s — grinding exceeding slow.

This has to change, and we hope that Sharma’s words will be backed by the kind of action that only a CJ can take, in terms of both his actual authority and in terms of moral suasion. It is part of his responsibility as Chief Justice to ensure that high standards are maintained at all levels of the legal profession. In the face of runaway crime, such professionalism becomes an even more urgent necessity than it would be in less perilous times. Without it, the centre cannot hold.