Matthew Xuereb interviews the president of the Chamber of Advocates, Louis Degabriele, who took over late last year.

Lawyers and their clients both stand to benefit from a new law regulating the legal profession, which is expected to be presented in Parliament before October, according to the Chamber of Advocates.

Chamber president Louis Degabriele said that following an 11-year baking period, the law was now ready and was being given its final touches by the Attorney General. He said Justice Minister Owen Bonnici had given him his word that the new bill would be tabled in Parliament before the beginning of the new forensic year.

Dr Degabriele, who has been a practising lawyer for more than three decades, said the profession was never regulated, except for a few provisions in the Code of Police Laws, which gave rise to complaints and diminished standards.

“Nowadays there are more than 1,500 lawyers. In a completely changed socio-economic environment, we need to regulate the profession, with all the pressures and the temptations that lawyers face [so we need something] to maintain standards and ensure that those who do not maintain those standards are weeded out,” he said.

He explained that through the new law, the Chamber of Advocates will become the regulator of the profession on a day–to-day basis while the chamber will be regulated by the Commission for the Administration of Justice. The chamber will have the power to exercise discipline within the profession and monitor practicing lawyers in the daily practice of the profession.

He said this two-tier system will benefit not only lawyers but also clients, who can have peace of mind about the service they are to expect from their lawyers.

“These are basic rules to ensure that the lawyers of tomorrow are better than us. We need to ensure that standards are not only maintained but we need to take these standards to a higher level,” he said.

“No lawyer can accept that standard of ‘anything goes’. It is a mentality that, as profession, we definitely cannot afford. We need to make sure that people in this profession, particularly the younger generations, understand this. The law is not going to teach you how to be prepared but it can give you the discipline to ensure that certain standards of integrity, independence and impartiality of thought are maintained,” he added.

He stressed that lawyers should be able to tell their clients things that they do not want to hear because they are not always right.

Asked about the Committee for Advocates and Legal Procurators, Dr Degabriele said this will now become the Advocates’ Disciplinary Tribunal and will deal with complaints which do not involve the removal or suspension of a warrant, which would then be referred to the Commission for the Administration of Justice.

“The committee was inundated with frivolous claims. Many cases which end up before this committee are complaints that their lawyer lost their case. There is also a three-month prescription period to observe. This division in disciplinary proceedings will make the committee work more efficiently by only dealing with cases which are substantiated,” he said.

No lawyer can accept the standard of ‘anything goes’. It is a mentality that, as profession, we definitely cannot afford

Dr Degabriele said that a good number of complaints were about overcharging and most of them were not justified as the fees were set.

The maximum fine at law is pegged to one-tenth of the Attorney General’s salary but at a time when lawyers are overseeing transactions involving millions of euros, he said this should increase.

Asked whether the committee for the appointment of the judiciary was simply acting as a rubberstamp, Dr Degabriele disagreed.

“It has a function and I honestly believe that the process can be improved. In fact, the committee is discussing this internally, with the intention to proceed with a system where the committee has more autonomy,” he said.

According to the lawyers’ chief, the committee ought to have a wider base, and more sitting judges should participate in the process. The Chief Justice, the Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Attorney General and the president of the Chamber of Advocates currently sit on the committee.

While the committee at present only gives a recommendation, it should be able to give the State the name of a person who ought to be made a judge or magistrate, he said.

Turning to the legal aid system, Dr Degabriele admitted that this needed “a complete rehash”, starting with a change to the means testing for eligibility.

The register is currently voluntary but Dr Degabriele believes that one of the options could be having a pool employed by the State or the court administration.   But in the meantime, he insisted that lawyers were duty-bound to offer the best possible service. 

Regarding the duration of cases in court, Dr Degabriele said the average length of a case in the First Hall was down to two to three years from eight years. One of the bottlenecks, he said, was at appeals stage where it takes four to five years for a case to be appointed.

“There is nothing which says that the judicial system is perfect but it is the best we have in a state of imperfection,” he said.

He suggested that appeals should be decided by judges based on written submissions rather than entire sittings, except if clarifications are needed.

He also criticised the way cases are heard in court, with judges expecting lawyers to be in two places at the same time.

“If the court were to have an appointment system and everyone is connected to the same database, lawyers cannot be given cases at the same time. In 2019, this is not artificial intelligence but a very simple calendar system which would give you a conflict if there’s an overlap. I think this will benefit everyone. It will not remove delays altogether but if would go a long way,” he said.

He also suggested the introduction of the concept of discovery where the parties are bound to disclose the evidence that they have in their case. Anything that is not disclosed cannot be used in court and this enables lawyers to better guide their clients.

Asked about reforms to the Constitution, Dr Degabriele said the chamber had already expressed its willingness to be involved.

“We can contribute as an objective professional body. We are willing to contribute and it is also important that as a representative body of the legal profession, we should be consulted.”

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.