business should be kept under continuous examination and the lists should be amended (after proper consultation) to reflect the state of
business.
ly
28.
ྂ ཌ t ཋ ཋ ཤྲཱ ཤྲཱ ཙ
"or
+
E
f
a
The Legal Profession
I made a point about the availability of advocates in my
Discussion Papers which is worth repeating here :-
[
am not here to discuss the question of fusion or the granting of rights of audience and for my present purposes I assume that existing professional structure and function will be maintained. But because it has a powerful effect on the efficiency of the court I do make a general point about rights being balanced by duties. As an informed public sees it, the grant to a body of advocates of an exclusive right of audience is made because the public gets something in return and what the public is primarily interested in is the quality and availability of the advocacy service. If it gets a good return in respect of both it has reason to be content. A supply of candidates for the bench and a benign political influence will be bonuses for the public. My concern is with part of the prime function namely availability. How is that to be guaranteed? If by the flow of litigation being controlled by individual advocates that is not something my hypothetical public would be willing to accept. I have advanced, the proposition that the court controls the systems and the pace and it follows that the advocates should provide their service within that framework. Otherwise there is chaos for barristers, solicitors and everyone else.
This does not mean that the court will proceed with its schedule willy-nilly. There are in which it is entirely reasonable to say that only a particular advocate can adequately represent the client and that the previous plan of the court must take second place. But there are many cases in which the interests of justice are served if some other advocate takes the case. That is a part of the justification for protected body of advocates in any country.
a
- 58 -
-