Consideration was given for the editing and publication of this post.
The judicial system is currently confronted with the issue of justice assessment, which, although it is a socially and politically unsuitable instrument for valorizing a judicial system, has generated debates about the performance of the judiciary. The problem is not new, the legal systems in this area have been strongly marked by assessments of all actors involved in justice, including lawyers.
According to attorneys in Stuart, Florida to assume its position in the reforms generated by such assessments, it is necessary to clarify the location of the attorney towards the judiciary system.
– Is the attorney designed within the judiciary as an independent component or not?
– Is the lawyer an auxiliary of the court, who plays a peripheral role in this system?
– Is there legal, presumed institutional trust of the judiciary system in the morality, fairness, and professionalism of lawyers?
– Are there historical or relatively recent causes that have led to a repositioning of the lawyer in society and, implicitly, in the judiciary?
– Guaranteeing the objectivity and accountability of out-of-court professional services can justify the alternative for state judiciary to breathe due to alternative lawyers’ practices (mediation, arbitration, conciliation, etc.)?
General aspects of the normative framework that configures the organization of the lawyer’s profession
In the modern society, justice is a fundamental function of the state, and its administration is an essential attribute of the sovereign power of the country. The judicial function of the state is accomplished through specialized bodies, organized by its own, functional and autonomous principles. The organization of the state structures that carry out the act of justice is based on the following principles: the achievement of justice is a state monopoly; the autonomy of the courts is guaranteed; judges are independent and irreproachable; judicial bodies have permanent activity, and jurisdictions are sedentary.
The functioning of the judiciary system is achieved by observing the following principles: the collegiality of the judiciary, the double degree of jurisdiction, the specialization of the courts, the constitution of the courts in a hierarchical system, the observance of the free access to justice, the equality before the judiciary and the free of judgement.
Organizationally and functionally, the profession of lawyer is based on the principle of autonomy, professional democracy, the collegiality of the governing bodies, lawfulness, freedom, and independence of the lawyer, professional secrecy, cooperation with judicial authorities and professional deontology. Read all about it here.
The following principles of lawyers’ activity are significant to clarify interferences between lawyer’s activity and the judiciary:
a) Independence and freedom to provide defense and counseling to the client;
b) Observance of the professional secrecy and confidentiality of the cases entrusted to him;
c) Preventing conflicts of interest either between multiple clients or between client and himself;
d) Dignity, honor, and probity;
e) Scrupulousness of honor;
(g) Respect for the rule of law and the duty to contribute to the proper administration of justice;
h) Self-regulation of the profession.
The role of lawyers in the functioning of the judiciary is confined to a dual aspect. On the one hand, bars are portrayed as structures, entities through which the profession of lawyer is lawfully exercised. On the other hand, the occupation of a lawyer is assimilated to the notion of law, the context in which it is perceived as a specific activity, carried out by lawyers, to carry out the act of justice, to defend the general interests of society, the rule of law.
See additional info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court
Institutional and functional improvement of the society through law aims at strengthening the rule of law and the rule of law, united with the guarantee of a real independent professional lawyer. It contributes to enhancing the independence of the judiciary, respecting the best practices related to the functioning of the court, ensuring the transparency of the act of justice, ensuring full institutional and legislative compatibility with the judicial systems.
Highlights of the position of a lawyer in the organization of the state
The majority doctrine shows that lawyers are placed outside the judicial authority because functions of the same nature do not link lawyers to the court or the legal power. It is clear that law is the oldest legal profession. Lawyers, irrespective of their name at a given historical moment, are due to the evolution of law, both by jurisprudence and by doctrine.
History confirms the evolution of the judiciary always in connection with the development of the profession of lawyer. Based on Organic Regulations, lawyers represented a small body that was part of the criminal courts and who were state employees.
Later, the profession of lawyer has been functionally integrated into the quick thinking of the legislative power, expressed by law, about the legal organization of state institutions. Without lawyers the operation of the judiciary was inconceivable.
The very symbol of solemnity in the practice of a rogue lawyer also expresses the same type of uniform for judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, with insignificant differences. Over time, legislation on the profession of lawyer has been reported on a permanent basis to the judiciary, and another public perception of the lawyer is unthinkable then that the lawyer belongs to and depends on the court.
The false etymology of the communist authorities made the profession of lawyer move away from liberalism that characterized the period of maximum development. The communist period has antagonistic tendencies. On the one hand, the lawyer is integrated into the judiciary, but this is due not to an increase in the importance of the profession but to the tendency of the state to control any professional structures, which is why this integration was perceived as a regression the occupational prestige viewed in the historical perspective. The judiciary, subjected to evaluation or self-evaluation, looks for benchmarks, sets goals, initiates regulations without concern to include the profession of lawyer in these concerns. Developing the judiciary independently, ignoring the job of lawyer, makes the lawyer’s “partnership” with court authority more and more often look like an “obstacle course.”