The practice of hastily pushing half-baked inadequate pieces of shoddily drafted bills continues to plague our legislature. The most recent example of this being the ‘Lawyers Welfare and Protection Bill, 2023’, that is being celebrated as some sort of a huge victory for lawyers, complete with posters of leading political party claiming this ‘victory’ on social media as some sort of a huge accolade intended to solicit the ‘yay’s’ and ‘wow’s’ from the legal community, in what appears to be a bid to seem appealing and sympathetic to this community to win over their support for impending elections.
In substance however, the bill and its content leaves much to be desired and would have benefitted from the perspectives of diverse members that make up the legal community had any semblance of consultations or an iota of an effort to include the needs and demands of the diverse stakeholders in the legal profession been taken into consideration while drafting this bill.
Before even getting into the details of how this has become a missed opportunity to address the long-standing needs and demands of young lawyers, women and other marginalised members of the legal community, at the outset, it must be highlighted that this bill, far from the welfare of the lawyers, actually does more to benefit the companies than lawyers.
Before this law, the requirement under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(b) of Companies (Appointment of Legal Advisers) Act, 1974 was that a company having paid up capital of more than 7.5 Million Rupees had to appoint at least one legal adviser on retainership.
Under the new law, the paid-up capital has been increased to 20 million, meaning thereby, fewer companies will now be legally bound to appoint a legal adviser on retainership than before. If this was meant to be ‘welfare’ of lawyers due to less work and thus, more room for mental health, then sure, this is a welcome step but if this was meant to increase their economic opportunities then perhaps not so much because Section 15 of the new law has an overriding effect, in that, the provisions of the new law shall take precedence and have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force.
As a result, the previous floor of 7.5 million paid up capital has been raised to 20 million by virtue of the new law; a provision that would most definitely benefit companies with paid-up capital in between 7.5 million to under 20 million as they would now be under no legal obligation to appoint such an adviser, even though previously they would have been required to do so.
Secondly, what was not already covered by existing laws in force both in penal code as well as in chapter on fundamental rights in the constitution that a new ‘Holy Cow’ in terms of ‘advocates’ had to be created through a special offence in their favour? This, without any appreciation of the role of lawyers, their duties and their own responsibilities towards the general public as well the clients and towards each other.
For instance, a selective paragraph from the UN General Assembly Resolution adopting the Basic Principles of Role of Lawyers has been intimidatingly referred to in the statement of objects but the Bill conveniently ignores the clauses on duties and responsibilities of lawyers that are part of the substance of the same principles which includes in clause 12, that ‘Lawyers shall at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession as essential agents of the administration of justice.’
There have been numerous instances in recent past where perpetrators of violence have allegedly been lawyers themselves and such violence, threats or harassment have been stated to have been committed against female police officers, female lawyers, doctors and members of public at large.
Women Lawyers Association Karachi and Women in Law Initiative Pakistan in their statements on such incidents have repeatedly called for independent inquiries and proceedings against perpetrators in accordance with law even though the accused may be from within the legal community in order to maintain dignity of the profession and to curb such acts of violence and indiscretion however, the disciplinary process of the Bars in relation to proceedings against lawyers remains unreformed and ineffective thereby deteriorating the confidence of the public as well as the confidence of the vulnerable members of the legal community, including female lawyers and members from diverse religious communities, on the ability of the system and the Bars to address complaints against behavior of lawyers.
In developed jurisdictions, the reforms are undertaken with a view to center public confidence in the legal system and processes and provisions safeguarding their interests and concerns are incorporated to impose duties and responsibilities and accountability of lawyers, such as for instance in the UK where solicitor and barristers have to adhere to strict standards and code of conduct of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board as the case may be.
However, in Pakistan, lawyers are emerging as some distinct class of persons that are being put on pedestal at par with government officers and are being privileged to the detriment of other professionals who don’t have same privileges and status as those envisaged under this new law for lawyers. Is this not discrimination? If so, why is it ok for lawyers to have this special status and not other professions? More importantly, why is the legislature acting more like bar associations and councils pressing for interests of lawyers to the exclusion of other professionals?
Even if the need to pass a law looking out for ‘welfare’ and ‘protection’ of the lawyers was felt to be necessary, it must be asked, whose ‘welfare’ and ‘protection’ does it represent? Lawyers are not all a homogenized group and within the legal community itself, there is a dominant class whose interests get reflected and/or protected in and through the bar councils. From the lens of gender, this would largely be men because, in absence of any affirmative actions for fair representation, only about 2% of women make up members of Bar Councils in Pakistan.
Similarly, female lawyers remain under-consulted in matters affecting them. Moreover, women lack fair and effective representation in parliament, cabinets and ministries as well but also that such Bills also lack effective public debate and opportunities to benefit from wider consultations given the haste in which legislations are bulldozed through our parliaments.
A lot of people have commented that the word ‘lawyer’ in the Bill applies to both male and female and therefore there is no gender discrimination in the law, but it must be clarified that that is not where the law lacks the gender perspective.
The long-standing demands related to specific welfare and needs of female lawyers such as maternity leave and benefits, day care centers, sanitation facilities, compliance with sexual harassment law and others have been completely left out from the idea of ‘welfare’ of lawyers that continues to be defined in accordance with a male centric lens of retainership in companies and other prioritized access and facilities to health and finance but with no mention of specific needs of women’s welfare as mentioned above that could have been addressed but were once again given a miss from those in authority and power. It is not every day that laws can be passed or amended so when such opportunities come and ignore the gender perspective, it is indeed a huge loss.
Likewise, many young lawyers have consistently demanded that funds be allocated for stipend for young lawyers to support them in the profession, but their welfare needs have also been tragically ignored. It seems all the ‘welfare’ that could be extracted from third parties like companies, financial institutions and health care providers has been sought through this Bill but the ‘welfare’ that Bar Councils and Associations ought to provide its members, including female members, young lawyers and other marginalized persons, has been conveniently overlooked which is a disservice to the idea of ‘welfare’ of all lawyers and perhaps also a little discriminatory and dishonest.
Without including any obligations on Bar Councils and Bar Associations and holding them accountable to ensure that welfare of all stakeholders and members including women, young lawyers and minorities is reflected through their policies, actions, rules and measures, it is pompous to expect welfare from third parties like companies and financial institutions etc. The welfare and protection of lawyers must begin from home and that means that the Bar has the first and the highest responsibility to discharge in the way it operates and addresses the demands for welfare and protection that the women, young lawyers and minorities have from them.
In substance however, the bill and its content leaves much to be desired and would have benefitted from the perspectives of diverse members that make up the legal community had any semblance of consultations or an iota of an effort to include the needs and demands of the diverse stakeholders in the legal profession been taken into consideration while drafting this bill.
Before even getting into the details of how this has become a missed opportunity to address the long-standing needs and demands of young lawyers, women and other marginalised members of the legal community, at the outset, it must be highlighted that this bill, far from the welfare of the lawyers, actually does more to benefit the companies than lawyers.
Before this law, the requirement under Section 3(1) read with Section 2(b) of Companies (Appointment of Legal Advisers) Act, 1974 was that a company having paid up capital of more than 7.5 Million Rupees had to appoint at least one legal adviser on retainership.
Under the new law, the paid-up capital has been increased to 20 million, meaning thereby, fewer companies will now be legally bound to appoint a legal adviser on retainership than before. If this was meant to be ‘welfare’ of lawyers due to less work and thus, more room for mental health, then sure, this is a welcome step but if this was meant to increase their economic opportunities then perhaps not so much because Section 15 of the new law has an overriding effect, in that, the provisions of the new law shall take precedence and have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force.
As a result, the previous floor of 7.5 million paid up capital has been raised to 20 million by virtue of the new law; a provision that would most definitely benefit companies with paid-up capital in between 7.5 million to under 20 million as they would now be under no legal obligation to appoint such an adviser, even though previously they would have been required to do so.
Secondly, what was not already covered by existing laws in force both in penal code as well as in chapter on fundamental rights in the constitution that a new ‘Holy Cow’ in terms of ‘advocates’ had to be created through a special offence in their favour? This, without any appreciation of the role of lawyers, their duties and their own responsibilities towards the general public as well the clients and towards each other.
For instance, a selective paragraph from the UN General Assembly Resolution adopting the Basic Principles of Role of Lawyers has been intimidatingly referred to in the statement of objects but the Bill conveniently ignores the clauses on duties and responsibilities of lawyers that are part of the substance of the same principles which includes in clause 12, that ‘Lawyers shall at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession as essential agents of the administration of justice.’
There have been numerous instances in recent past where perpetrators of violence have allegedly been lawyers themselves and such violence, threats or harassment have been stated to have been committed against female police officers, female lawyers, doctors and members of public at large.
Women Lawyers Association Karachi and Women in Law Initiative Pakistan in their statements on such incidents have repeatedly called for independent inquiries and proceedings against perpetrators in accordance with law even though the accused may be from within the legal community in order to maintain dignity of the profession and to curb such acts of violence and indiscretion however, the disciplinary process of the Bars in relation to proceedings against lawyers remains unreformed and ineffective thereby deteriorating the confidence of the public as well as the confidence of the vulnerable members of the legal community, including female lawyers and members from diverse religious communities, on the ability of the system and the Bars to address complaints against behavior of lawyers.
In developed jurisdictions, the reforms are undertaken with a view to center public confidence in the legal system and processes and provisions safeguarding their interests and concerns are incorporated to impose duties and responsibilities and accountability of lawyers, such as for instance in the UK where solicitor and barristers have to adhere to strict standards and code of conduct of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board as the case may be.
However, in Pakistan, lawyers are emerging as some distinct class of persons that are being put on pedestal at par with government officers and are being privileged to the detriment of other professionals who don’t have same privileges and status as those envisaged under this new law for lawyers. Is this not discrimination? If so, why is it ok for lawyers to have this special status and not other professions? More importantly, why is the legislature acting more like bar associations and councils pressing for interests of lawyers to the exclusion of other professionals?
Even if the need to pass a law looking out for ‘welfare’ and ‘protection’ of the lawyers was felt to be necessary, it must be asked, whose ‘welfare’ and ‘protection’ does it represent? Lawyers are not all a homogenized group and within the legal community itself, there is a dominant class whose interests get reflected and/or protected in and through the bar councils. From the lens of gender, this would largely be men because, in absence of any affirmative actions for fair representation, only about 2% of women make up members of Bar Councils in Pakistan.
Similarly, female lawyers remain under-consulted in matters affecting them. Moreover, women lack fair and effective representation in parliament, cabinets and ministries as well but also that such Bills also lack effective public debate and opportunities to benefit from wider consultations given the haste in which legislations are bulldozed through our parliaments.
A lot of people have commented that the word ‘lawyer’ in the Bill applies to both male and female and therefore there is no gender discrimination in the law, but it must be clarified that that is not where the law lacks the gender perspective.
The long-standing demands related to specific welfare and needs of female lawyers such as maternity leave and benefits, day care centers, sanitation facilities, compliance with sexual harassment law and others have been completely left out from the idea of ‘welfare’ of lawyers that continues to be defined in accordance with a male centric lens of retainership in companies and other prioritized access and facilities to health and finance but with no mention of specific needs of women’s welfare as mentioned above that could have been addressed but were once again given a miss from those in authority and power. It is not every day that laws can be passed or amended so when such opportunities come and ignore the gender perspective, it is indeed a huge loss.
Likewise, many young lawyers have consistently demanded that funds be allocated for stipend for young lawyers to support them in the profession, but their welfare needs have also been tragically ignored. It seems all the ‘welfare’ that could be extracted from third parties like companies, financial institutions and health care providers has been sought through this Bill but the ‘welfare’ that Bar Councils and Associations ought to provide its members, including female members, young lawyers and other marginalized persons, has been conveniently overlooked which is a disservice to the idea of ‘welfare’ of all lawyers and perhaps also a little discriminatory and dishonest.
Without including any obligations on Bar Councils and Bar Associations and holding them accountable to ensure that welfare of all stakeholders and members including women, young lawyers and minorities is reflected through their policies, actions, rules and measures, it is pompous to expect welfare from third parties like companies and financial institutions etc. The welfare and protection of lawyers must begin from home and that means that the Bar has the first and the highest responsibility to discharge in the way it operates and addresses the demands for welfare and protection that the women, young lawyers and minorities have from them.