Call for special warrant to lawyers
Training in matrimonial litigation
Lawmakers should consider introducing a special warrant for lawyers to practise in the Family Court to ensure they were trained to deal with the sensitive nature of the cases, Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano said yesterday.
The time had also come to implement some form of quality assurance system to monitor the work carried out by mediators in separation cases, he said.
The Chief Justice was speaking about families in the law courts during a conference organised by the International Commission on Couple and Family Relations (ICCFR) and the Cana Movement.
The conference, entitled Emp-owering Families As Sustainable Partners In Social Policy, brought together academics from various countries.
The Chief Justice explained that the bulk of cases before the Family Court concerned separation and annulment.
Since mediation was introduced, in 2003, a couple seeking separation had first to appear in front of a mediator before going for litigation. The mediator tried to reconcile the couple or work out an amicable separation. If the case moved on to litigation, the tension in the courtroom was often palpable.
"The situation is not made easier when lawyers use inflammatory language to make some point or refer to the opposing party in very uncomplimentary terms," the Chief Justice said.
When children were involved, all too often they were used as pawns by their parents "and sometimes, unfortunately, even by insensitive lawyers".
"Perhaps it's about time that... the legislator considers whether a special warrant should be introduced for advocates to practise in the family section of the Civil Courts. Such a warrant would be granted only after the advocates undergo special training... in matrimonial litigation and the warrant will be subject to renewal every so many years."
The Chief Justice explained that while judges' work could be accessed, because the cases were open to the public, mediation took place in a room where only the parties, their lawyers and the mediator were present. "I would like to see some sort of quality assurance undertaken of the work of the mediators," he said.
He concluded by pointing out that families who ended up in court obviously had problems to solve. This reality could not be ignored. However, there was also the reality of families founded on a stable marriage who never made the headlines. Society owed a great deal to these families who may not be out there campaigning for rights, sending letters to newspapers or writing comments on blogs.
"And, please, don't mention blogs to me at the moment," he said in an obvious reference to the blog of columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia who stands charged with defaming Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera through a series of entries.
In his opening speech, Cana director Fr Joseph Mizzi spoke about the importance of empowering families "to be catalysts in policy-making".
"Whenever policies are being discussed, they should he subjected to a family impact assessment just like planning projects are subjected to an environment impact assessment," he said.
Policies on taxation, social benefits, housing, inheritance and work should go through this assessment by consulting with family representatives within civil society, he said.
ICCFR chairman Terry Prendergast stressed it was important that families spoke up about issues that concerned them so these would be reflected in policies.
He gave the example of cohabitating couples, who followed the family model but did not fall under the traditional description of family.
Unfortunately, he said, these couples were not easy to pin down because they did not make their voice heard much. Yet, as these couples increased in number, it was important they spoke up to shape polices that might affect them.
4 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
J Galea
Mar 13th 2010, 21:21
Specialised training is a good idea but what is this idea of yet another state warrant? Why does everything always have to come from the state in Malta? What is the Chamber of Advocates doing about this if there is a perceived problem in the work quality of lawyers dealing with such an important issue? If the CJ has seen the problem it surely exists. Where are the forces of the market to resolve this matter?
Joseph V. Grech
Mar 13th 2010, 18:31
Well done to Chief Justice deGaetano for recommending these improvements!
May I please inform the Chief Justice that even at the Planning Appeals Board there certainly does not exist any ''quality assurance system''. There is insensitivity, disrespect and bias.
The situation is this: Applicant (with a Permit in hand) and Objector have lawyers representing them.
Then there is the legal counsel for Mepa - who actually sits on the side of the Applicant!
From the experience of many the latter throws his weight on the side of the Applicant. How can he do otherwise bearing in mind that Mepa has already issued the permit - a decision which he must defend? Such decision can only be ''justified'' if Applicant wins the case and the Objector loses it....
I know of one case when a lawyer presented incorrect submissions and, when this was pointed out he never apologised and acted as if nothing had happened.
Also: why does the Planning Appeals Board hear cases at intervals of three or four months? There are other issues involved which we need not go into here.
Mepa Reform will hopefully address this issue - as also, it is hoped will the Chief Justice.
Melvyn Mifsud LLD
Mar 13th 2010, 17:09
The Honourable Chief Justice's comments about fine tuning the mediation process provide good food for thought. Mediation is not just for accademically prepared professionals but to be provided for by humans - with an overding humane touch
The mediation system in the Family Court is a good idea and on the whole, effective. Before it having been set as being mandatory, it was up to the client's lawyer to attempt to mediate in an unoffical fashion. Lawyers generally would take it on to themselves to get the parties to reconcile and iron out their differences or seek a consensual seperation.
Mediation, if extended, can save so much pain, suffering and also money for the parties involved - as well as the state. So many disputes may be resolved through a well prepared and articulate meidator. Pouring water over the wounds - butting in at the right moment and with the right attitude.
How about studying the possibility of extending the concept to other fields of law - initially on a voluntary basis . Where the law provides the necessary mechanism.
As always, time will offer the best advice. Melvyn Mifsud LLD
Carol Samm
Mar 13th 2010, 13:43
About time that something is done! I also think that the time taken for certain decisions to be taken in court with regards this topic, is sometimes too long. One has to keep in mind that there is a lot of pain suffered by both parties and especially the children. Therefore as much as possible, decisions in the family court should be taken as soon as possible to avoid irrelevant waste of time and money.