Deeply: Mandatory International Rules are considered to protect lawyers

Among the gloomy discoveries of this month, the day of the endangered lawyer – dedicated to oppression in Belarus – came one ray of light. Tony Fisher, the chairman of the Human Rights Committee, was able to report a significant step forward in an international campaign to ensure that governments were responsible for “attacks, threats, harassment and intimidation to” legal professionals in their observation.

Speaking at the DOEL Law Society, Fisher announced that the Council of Europe Expert Committee had agreed on the draft Convention on the Protection of the Lawyer’s profession. “It’s very exciting,” he said. “It’s the only tool like in the world.” This event, obligatory for the participating States, will introduce “a line of protection against a wide range of threats faced by lawyers of state and non-governmental parties, even in democratic Europe.”

The Convention was held for several years in creation. Currently, the most common international guarantees of lawyers are the basic principles of the UN, adopted at the 1990 conference in Havana. However, his declarations in support of professional independence and the right not to be identified with clients are not enforceable (at least of all in Cuba, where the role of the state legal regulator regularly falls under international control).

The work on the mandatory international convention began in 2016 under the auspices of the European law firm CCBE. The Council of Europe’s involvement began in 2022. The draft Convention was the work of the 15-horsepower committee of experts representing Member States with broadly different legal traditions-general legislation and civil legislation-and professional regulatory structures.

As expected, the agreed draft of the Convention, which fills in 30 pages of mirror English and French text, is exhaustive, in principle, covering everything from death to death to intact publications on social networks.

The project for its purpose to “strengthen the protection of the profession with independence and without discrimination, improper obstacles or intervention, or subject to text, threats, harassment, or intimidation,” was approved and adopted by the European Committee on Legal Cooperation by the European Committee in November. This week it was on the agenda at the Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg, where supporters from the UK included Prosecutor General, Lord Hermer and former Justice Minister Lord Kin.

According to the Convention, governments must ensure that lawyers can fulfill their professional duties without being the object of “any form of physical attack, threat, harassment or intimidation” or “any improper obstacle or intervention.” His articles cover the right to practice, professional rights of lawyers, professional discipline, freedom of expression and protective measures. They require the parties to ensure that lawyers and their professional associations are free to do their work without attack: in the event of such a party, they must conduct an “effective investigation”.

The parties should also guarantee that “professional associations” are independent, self -governing bodies. Several articles recognize the existence of competing rights: for example, the obligation to ensure that lawyers “do not have adverse consequences from identification with their clients” should be used “without preventing freedom of expression”.

Based on the current consensus, the wind seems fair for the official adoption of the COE Ministers Convention, scheduled for May. At least 10 countries have to sign this. “We are expecting ratification this year,” Fisher said, noting that the Convention was open to states outside the Council of Europe.

The conformity of the Convention will be controlled by an expert group named Grav, whose members will be selected “according to a transparent procedure among persons of high moral nature.”

Although no one expects the group to be of great weight among the worst offenders in the world, it can give governments that are concerned about pause for thought. In order to take the parish example, any UK attempt to streamline legal regulation will have to listen to the provisions of “independence” and self-government of the Convention.

Gravo may expect to be busy.