The Minister of Justice’s declaration in Parliament on May 23, that the two law graduates not granted a warrant to practise the legal profession will now be given one, has given rise to concerns.

The issue was first raised by the Chamber of Advocates in a letter to the Chief Justice before the graduates were examined by the judges. It was followed up by another letter to the President and minister, after the examining judges bizarrely declared that the graduates met the eligibility criteria at law, notwithstanding their admission sentence to the crimes of theft, fraud and forgery.

The good conduct requirement is not unique to the legal profession. Most professions have a similar requirement. Some of us think that the relevance of this requirement to the legal profession should have been more obvious.

However, the issue is not so much about some judges’ reluctance to appreciate this point and whether the sentence of a conditional discharge amounts to a conviction or not; nor is it about the graduates themselves and their right to be granted a warrant notwithstanding the sentence against them. It is about whether in today’s world it is necessary for society to even have this requirement in the first place.

It is also about having a legislative and regulatory framework that is designed to ensure that a warrant is granted only to those who have the requisites and attributes deemed necessary to exercise the profession in the public interest.

Why does the State grant a licence to practice a profession only after an individual has obtained academic qualifications? Because the public needs to be assured that the individual does meet the requisites; it is the State’s way of telling you that this person is to be trusted.

The requirement at law for a warranted lawyer to be of good conduct and morals is not and should not be satisfied by the submission of a clean police conduct certificate – it is simply that a person who wishes to exercise the profession rooted in the client’s trust must as a prerequisite manifest that he is trustworthy.

Therefore, those burdened with the responsibility of certifying that such a person has the right prerequisites must be satisfied that he or she is as satisfactory a candidate as possible. Simply looking at a police conduct certificate may well be skimming the surface, or rather taking the easiest or least strenuous way out. However, there is little doubt that if presented with other cogent evidence pointing to the contrary, the prima facie evidence of the conduct certificate ought to be displaced.

This incident has shown the glaring need to provide the right structures for the proper and effective regulation of a profession

The Chamber of Advocates has consistently acted in the interest of the legal profession and the public it serves for more than 140 years and has campaigned, since 2008, for the introduction of a law to consider the evolution of the profession and the significantly changed socioeconomic environment in which it operates. Laws and structures dealing with discipline do exist and despite a serious lack of resources, rules of discipline are applied quite efficiently and certainly impartially by the Committee for Advocates within the Commission for the Administration of Justice. There is so much more it should do, given the proper regulatory framework.

Some argue it is unfair to condemn someone to never being able to practice the legal profession for a mistake committed in youth. Others argue life is all about consequences and we are expected to pay for our mistakes.

In this case, however, it is not about the individual paying for his mistake but about protecting the public and the profession’s reputation; it is about not issuing an incorrect certificate of credibility to someone who by his actions has shown that he ought not to be trusted. This does not prevent the individual from using his university degree in any other sphere, but he should not be given a certificate by the State as testament to his honesty and integrity.

In my book that would be tantamount to a false certificate. It’s akin to the “conduct certificate” issued by the police – a blatantly false certificate not worth the paper it is written on.

It may be argued, legitimately, that a mechanism should exist whereby those who have failed the “conduct test” are given another chance. Fine, this is what the legislator could be looking at. I appreciate there may exist circumstances that warrant a different treatment and that the concept of “good conduct” is inherently vague and open to interpretation. Perhaps certain types of wrongdoing should not preclude an individual from ever being granted a warrant, but I doubt very much whether theft, fraud and forgery could ever be included in this list of “lesser evils”.

This incident has shown the glaring need to provide the right structures for the proper and effective regulation of a profession. The Chamber has shown it is the only bulwark for enhancing the standards necessary to meet the ever-increasing challenges posed by higher internal and external pressures on members of the profession, and to ensure those who fail those standards are brought in line.

Dr George Hyzler is president of the Chamber of Advocates.