IN the beginning, law societies were formed primarily with the object of rooting out the vending of justice through go-betweens, commonly referred to as ‘touts’. This was because the practice of buying and selling judges and justice is as old as the judicial system itself. With time, however, these societies developed into lawyers’ welfare organisations.

The Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 governs the affairs of bar councils. It recognises two tiers of bar councils, the first being the Pakistan Bar Council which is the parent body of lawyers’ associations and the second comprising the four provincial bar councils. The district and high court bar associations function under the rules of the provincial bar councils.

The main functions of the bar councils under the act are to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates. The bar councils are also bound to promote and suggest law reforms, and to take measures to ensure inexpensive and fair justice from the judiciary. Being the governing bodies of lawyers, they also organise examinations, tests or interviews to admit new advocates on their rolls and to entertain and determine cases of misconduct, punish the advocates and remove their names from the rolls if guilt is proven.

Practically speaking, however, Pakistan’s law societies have become a virtual tool in the hands of their members and due to subjective lawyer politics, the utility and effectiveness of these bodies have been compromised. As has often enough been pointed out, they demand funds and plots for their members from the government, instead of making coherent and comprehensive efforts to suggest and bring about reforms required to improve standards and quality within their own ranks.

The effectiveness of law societies has been compromised.

The district and high court bar associations are the electoral college for the respective provincial bar councils. The latter elect members of the Pakistan Bar Council. For this reason, bar associations have become very influential bodies that can often dictate terms to the office-bearers. Even segments of the judiciary are not averse to obliging them.

The legal community has always been very powerful, but the situation regarding its activities has deteriorated after the lawyers movement. Since the success of this movement, many law societies have been accused of corruption, sometimes even of blackmail, while lawyers have emerged as the most dominant component in the administration of the justice system.

The offices of the bar association and bar councils are almost like businesses where huge amounts are spent on ‘campaigns’ by candidates to win bar elections.

The saddest part is that after the lawyers movement, some of the advocates started to indulge in mob tactics. Numerous incidents have been reported in the media where they have beaten up and abused police officials, judges and their staff. There have even been cases where such individuals were detained and kept in illegal confinement in their own chambers because they refused to meet the lawyers’ demands.

The irony is that neither the bar councils nor, unfortunately, the superior judiciary took firm notice of these incidents. The lawyers’ behaviour was overlooked. In a few cases, the victimised officials, judges or staff were forced to beg their attackers for mercy. In others, instead of calling the culprits to account, judges of the subordinate judiciary were transferred out of station.

Often, the office-bearers of law societies are prevented from performing their main role as watchdogs against corruption, nepotism and favouritism.

The appointments in the superior court system are also contributing to this decline. Due to the extremely centralised system of appointments, office-bearers often become job-seekers and end up ignoring their main role of highlighting the problems of the system, including corruption and nepotism.

The process of the accountability of advocates is in the hands of the bar councils, but the legal fraternity is constantly failing to hold its own members accountable.

In the absence of a vibrant and vigorous bar association and firm bar councils, the concept of an honest and valiant judiciary at all levels of the judicial structure becomes doubtful.

Law societies must play their role in bringing about the reform of their own cadres. A number of steps can be taken towards this end.

The first measure in this direction would be to ensure that the bars are completely independent bodies, free of any outside influence. Second, the members must elect those representatives who have a reputation for honesty and professionalism. Third, office-bearers must of their own volition not take up cases for which they will be paid during their tenure, and the courts must also discourage this practice. Fourth, bar representatives should only be allowed to contest elections after the verification of their degrees. And lastly, bar councils must suggest reforms in substantive and procedural laws as well as in legal education.

The writer is an advocate.

Twitter: @faisal_fareed

Published in Dawn, August 17th, 2014