“The law is a jealous mistress and requires long and constant courtship. It is not won by trifling favours, but by lavish homage.” So said US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in 1929. Much has been written about this statement, including its origins. One suggestion is that it was first used by James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, in a letter to a friend in 1789. The phrase reflects the demanding nature of the law which requires constant attention and devotion. Recognition of the aphorism is among the first lessons urged upon newly qualified lawyers when they are admitted to practice. The admission ceremony takes place in court before a Judge who, in admitting the newly qualified lawyer to practice, and congratulating him or her, admonishes him or her to adhere closely to the message contained in the statement. To one degree or another, most lawyers observe the adage to one degree or another. Those who do, give “lavish homage,” and those who don’t, giving only “trifling favours.” These groups are easily identifiable.
The Guyana Bar Association (GBA) was consulted by the Attorney General on the request of two American lawyers to be admitted to practice in Guyana. The Legal Practitioners Act provides that one of the requirements of anyone desiring to practice here must be that the person is a “national” of one of the signatory countries making up the Council of Legal Education. The AG could amend the legislation but the GBA unanimously rejected such a course and told him so.
Quite apart from the legal niceties expressed in the Guyana Bar Association’s (GBA) statement, the phenomenon of American accents ringing out in our acoustically challenged courtrooms, would be, to say the least, unusual. What about our lawyers’ ways, styles, temperament, the deference we pay to judges? To meet the challenging novelty of American lawyers’ unaccustomed presence in our courts, would more judges emerge who would frequently threaten to “lock [them] up” and treat them with undisguised rudeness as our native lawyers have had to endure in recent times? Since it appears that such judicial dispositions are tolerated and, does not obstruct upward mobility, as rumour has it, maybe judges will follow the example that the more aggressive they are to lawyers, the quicker the promotional opportunities! What would the newly admitted American lawyers make of such situations. Would they be intimidated into obsequiousness, as so many in Guyana were forced to do? Or would they push back and court a few nights in lot 12?
The situation in Trinidad must not be ignored. Guyanese lawyers have witnessed the takeover of the higher reaches of the legal profession by British QCs, now KCs who are often retained to appear in the Privy Council, despite the great number of experienced and talented lawyers in Trinidad. Although the situation may now be changing, very few Trinidad lawyers appear as lead counsel in the Privy Council representing Trinidad clients. Can the same happen in Guyana for the Caribbean Court of Justice which is our final court of appeal. with standards comparable to the Privy Council that require the same very high quality of work. Would Guyana’s lawyers lose out to American lawyers the opportunity of practicing before the CCJ? It cannot be ruled out that this possibility, as well as the potential competition that would be offered to Guyanese lawyers in our Supreme court, are considerations motivating the GBA. I do not believe, however, that this is a serious threat. Much of litigation in the future would be by way of arbitration. Our new Arbitration Act allows non-Guyanese lawyers to appear in arbitrations. Nevertheless, the request to be admitted to practice in our courts probably lead Guyana’s lawyers to expect direct competition. The word “jealously,” meaning the protection of one’s turf, therefore acquires a new and additional dimension to that originally understood in the famous phrase.
From time immemorial it has been said, and continues to be said, that the legal profession is overcrowded. That statements in probably having more resonance now than fifty years ago. But American lawyers practicing here would be more likely to compete with the senior lawyers, who are a small percentage of the entire body of lawyers. I doubt that the vast majority of lawyers have anything to fear from American lawyers practicing here. The other side of the coin suggests if high quality American lawyers seize the opportunity of practicing here, if allowed, it can enhance the quality of practice.
But the influential GBA has spoken. It is hardly likely that the Guyana Government has any argument strong enough to override its opinion. The idea of American lawyers in our courts is not one that can gain ready acceptance. The Guyana Bar Association has established itself as one of the most important and prestigious civil society bodies. A revamped, militant, GBA emerged from protests in the mid-1970s against certain legal reforms that were proposed. It since played a major role in the restoration of democracy and has since continued to play a constructive role in civil society affairs. The current government would not want to mess with the GBA.
(This column is reproduced with permission from Ralph Ramkarran’s blog, www.conversationstree.gy)