By the time this article is published the National Assembly would have debated the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill. Whatever the outcome of the deliberations of the National Assembly, those portions of the Bill which have not attracted adverse comments from the Opposition and the Guyana Bar Association, if supported and find themselves in the Bill, would transform the disciplinary structures relating to the legal profession.

The Legal Practitioners Act, Chapter 4:01 of the Laws of Guyana, which regulates the legal profession, was passed in 1897. It was then known as an Ordinance. Part 11 of the Ordinance, which provides for discipline of members of legal profession, was enacted in 1931 as an amendment to the Ordinance. The Legal Practitioners Committee (LPC) was established, appointed by the Chancellor of the Judiciary, to which complaints of misconduct by lawyers could be made by clients. Where a case of misconduct was established against the legal practitioner, the LPC would report their findings to the judges of the court.

The LPC has been working quietly and without publicity for decades dealing with complaints by members of the public. As far as I know most of these are resolved. Nevertheless there are still complaints by the members of the public from time to time about the failure of lawyers to deliver the services for which they are paid.

The Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Bill seeks to enlarge the powers of the LPC and implement a binding Code of Conduct on lawyers, the breach of which would comprise misconduct. It also for the first time gives statutory recognition of the Bar Association.

The amendment allows the LPC, where it finds that misconduct has been proved, to impose a fine or to reprimand the lawyer. Where the LPC finds that a case has been made out which justifies punishment more severe than the above, such as suspension from practice or removal from the Court Roll, the LPC shall forward a copy of the proceedings to the Chancellor and the Attorney General with its findings.

The statutory recognition of a Code of Conduct is a major advance in holding lawyers accountable. Currently, lawyers can be disciplined for ‘misconduct,’ which is not defined in the Act. Thus ‘misconduct’ is determined on a case by case basis on the various definitions arrived at through court decision in the past. If the portion in relation to the Code of Conduct becomes law, then the LPC and the Courts will have the Code of Conduct as the basis of defining ‘misconduct.’ This is because the Bill provides that a breach of the Code of Conduct is professional misconduct.

The Code of Conduct consists of a Preamble and eighteen sections all consisting of 124 sections in all. It is wide ranging and deals with all aspects of conduct which arise in the course of a lawyer’s work. It deals with confidentiality of clients’ business, the lawyer’s observance of the rule of law, discharging duties with integrity, avoiding conflict of interest, not accepting briefs in matters where the lawyer has no competence, forbidding advertisements, providing for rules of advocacy, professional rules relating to the conduct of cases, taking care of clients’ interests, relations with fellow attorneys-at-law, rules for public law officers, standards of appearance, touting, responding to the Bar association and obtaining a practice certificate from the Commissioner General, accounting for clients’ funds, discipline and reporting torture.

The Code of Conduct is too extensive to be dealt with in a short article such as this. But subject to its adoption by the National Assembly (and objections have been made to some of its provisions) it will mark an enormous advance in accountability of the legal profession. The public will be able to know in detail their own rights and the responsibilities of lawyers and more firmly insist on their observance. Despite the objections to some aspects of the Bill, there is no objection in principle to its general thrust. At the end of the day, therefore, the reforms will be effected and the rights of the public will be more effectively protected.