The head of state believes that in the wording adopted by the parliament, the document “does not offer sufficient solutions to the systemic problems of the bar, especially in terms of incorruptibility, transparency, meritocracy and ensuring effective access to justice for citizens”.
“But even more alarming is the fact that the institution of the Bar remains inert towards the actions of lawyers who illegally influence court decisions, engage in influence peddling or are even part of criminal groups,” Maya Sandu wrote on her social media page.
Due to the expiration of the term of office of the current parliament, the decision on the controversial law on advocacy will be made by the new legislature.
“I expect that the new Parliament will revise the project in dialog with professionals in the field, civil society and European partners and will come back with such a law, which will simultaneously ensure the independence of the profession and solve the above-mentioned problems, so that the Bar really promoted compliance with the law and strengthen confidence in the justice system,” – said the head of state.
Earlier, the lawyers demanded the president not to sign the law and said that their protest, announced on July 15, would last until it was withdrawn.
Recall that the law, amended through an amendment by PAS deputy Efimia Bandalak, provided for the inclusion of members appointed by the Ministry of Justice from among representatives of the academic community and civil society in the main commissions of the Bar – for licensing, ethics and complaint handling – to be appointed by the Ministry of Justice. In addition, the law imposes limits on the length of the mandates of commission members and establishes a three-year break for lawyers who previously held these positions in order to “prevent monopolization.” It also abolishes fees for disciplinary complaints as a measure to protect the right to petition.
The Bar Association considered that the amendments were adopted “without consulting the bar association, which is a serious violation of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Legal Profession and Law No. 239/2008 on transparency in decision-making”.
