THREE ROUTES TO JUSTICE FOR ALL SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN AUSTRALIA?

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/articles/2545 three routes to justice for all The LSUC needs to expand the scope of paralegals,online information and ABS By Noel Semple October 30 2015 issue motttive / iStockphoto.com Click here to see full sized version. Comments? Please contact us at comments@lawyersweekly.ca. Please include your name, your law firm or company name and address. A statutory mandate was given to the Law Society of Upper Canada almost ten years ago: “Act so as to facilitate access to justice for the people of Ontario.” How effectively has it been carried out? Undeniably, access to justice is now taken seriously at Osgoode Hall. Recent initiatives such as the treasurer’s action group on access to justice are encouraging to those who want all Ontarians to enjoy the law’s benefits. While great strides have been made, a great distance remains to be travelled. Three policy areas — paralegal practice, online information, and alternative business structures — illustrate both how far the law society has come and how far it must still go. Paralegal practice The legislation (Access to Justice Act 2006) that created the access to justice mandate also entrusted the law society with the regulation of paralegals. The good news is that paralegal regulation appears to be effective in terms of licensing, codes of conduct and discipline. Lawyers’ fees are beyond reach for most Ontarians when billed hourly. When levied on a contingency basis, they cut deep into recoveries for individual plaintiffs, who are seldom financially secure even after a favourable litigation outcome. It is very important that there be an affordable, but still reliable and regulated, alternative to lawyers. The problem is that the paralegal alternative is open for only a very small set of legal needs: Small Claims Court, administrative tribunals, and minor criminal cases. In family law, which is probably our worst access to justice quagmire, paralegals are prohibited to engage in any independent practice whatsoever. The traditional objection to expanded paralegal practice is that everything outside of the current scope is so complicated and risky that no one without a full lawyer license can possibly offer competent service. This objection should be subjected to comprehensive and objective scrutiny. What types of case can be competently handled by what legal professionals? How do we establish scopes of practice that maximize the public interest, taking into account client interests in price and choice as well as quality? Is it really impossible for licensed paralegals to competently handle, for example, legally straightforward “guideline” child support cases? These questions should be answered through open and rigorous study, informing evidence-based scope of practice definitions. Finding legal professionals Even if the fees are manageable, it is often a struggle for an individual to find a law firm with the right expertise, service package and trustworthiness. Personal referral is the time-honoured way to find a professional, but in our urbanized mass society it no longer works for everyone. The law society’s referral service and lawyer and paralegal directory are already helping access to justice by connecting people to legal professionals. The next step is to build out the directory into a full-featured platform telling prospective clients how to find the perfect firm. Borrowing from sites like Airbnb and TripAdvisor, the directory should include detailed information about each professional’s services and, importantly, prices. This information can be gathered from licensees on their annual reports. Reliable and unbiased service quality information should be in the directory as well. The law society can use practice audits and client surveys to gather this information and make it freely available online. Doing so would make a major contribution to access to justice in this province. Alternative business structures Permitting alternative business structures (ABS) means allowing lawyers and paralegals to collaborate with non-licensees in new ways. Access to justice can flourish if Ontario firms offer innovations such as flat fees, better use of technology and one-stop shopping for legal and non-legal needs. However, it is very difficult for the small, owner-operated law firms which serve Ontario’s individual clients today to provide all of this alone. They need capital and expertise from outside the legal guild. The law society has shown commendable flexibility in permitting professional corporations and multidisciplinary practices. It is now time to take another careful step forward, and permit limited non-licensee investment in and management of law firms. To foreclose on ABS’ access-enhancing potential on the basis of speculative ethical concerns would be gratuitous, given that these concerns can readily be addressed through fine-tuned entity regulation. To foreclose on this potential in order to protect Ontario lawyers from new competition would be a grave dereliction of the law society’s public interest mandate. The next reforms Over the past decade, the Law Society of Upper Canada has done good work to facilitate access to justice for the people of Ontario. The fact that the problem is (obviously) not yet solved is not the law society’s fault. However, this reality does necessitate continued and expanded efforts from the law society, along with the courts, the government, the law schools and the entire profession. The next generation of access-enhancing regulatory reforms should include an evidence-based paralegal scope of practice definition. It should include a full-featured online directory of legal professionals including price and quality information. It should include an open door to alternative business structures, accompanied by fine-tuned regulation to safeguard clients and legal ethics. These are not easy pills to swallow. Although they offer exciting opportunities, they also require a tolerance of new competition and new accountability. For the law society to embrace them will prove that our public interest regulator, and the legal profession that stands behind it, are truly dedicated to making justice accessible to all. Noel Semple is assistant professor at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law. He is the author of Legal Services Regulation at the Crossroads: Justitia’s Legions.

WHERE IS THE JUSTICE FOR ME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW III?

Re: Lloyd Rayney argues he is fit to practise law: Perth tribunal Inbox Unity Party WA 11:37 (17 minutes ago) to President, Press, me, Editor, Editor, President, customer.servi., Andrew, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor, Editor Dear Justice Jeremy Curthoys, We are still waiting for a reply from the Legal Practice Board as to why our member Mr. Nicholas Chin was deregistered. Is it because he is a Chinese-Australian? Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Yours respectfully, Eddie Hwang President Unity Party WA info@unitywa.org http://uitypartywa.wordpress.com http://twitter.com/unitypartywa Fax/hone: 61893681884 Save the trees - Please use email UPWA is the only political Party that calls a spade a spade.. Lloyd Rayney argues he is fit to practise law: Perth tribunal an hour ago - KATE CAMPBELLAAP FORMER Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney was aware he was breaking the law when he recorded his estranged wife’s private phone calls and disposed of potential evidence, a lawyer has argued in a WA tribunal. A three-day hearing to determine whether Mr Rayney is a fit and proper person to practise as a lawyer started in the State Administrative Tribunal on Tuesday. Mr Rayney is challenging the Legal Practice Board’s decision to cancel his certificate on the basis that he arranged the installation of phone interception equipment at his home shortly before Corryn Rayney was murdered in August 2007. Mr Rayney was acquitted in 2012 of his wife’s murder. Earlier this year he was acquitted in the District Court of illegally intercepting the home telephone to record his wife’s calls after the judge found he had no case to answer midway through a trial. Martin Cuerden, lawyer for the Legal Practice Board, said the SAT should find that Mr Rayney knew it was an offence to record his wife’s private conversations with The board rejected Mr Rayney’s claim that he arranged for a listening device to be installed to record conversation he was a part of, he said. Mr Cuerden said Mr Rayney disposed of two dictaphones he knew were covered by a search warrant — after the execution of the warrant and after police had named him the “prime” and “only” suspect in his wife’s death, which made the prospect of criminal proceedings reasonably foreseeable. He also said Mr Rayney had shown a lack of candour with the board. The lawyer said it was common ground between the parties that Mr Rayney had arranged for the device to be installed but what was in contention was his purpose for doing so and the timing of it — whether it was before or after his wife went on a trip to Melbourne with their daughters. Mr Cuerden said despite the District Court acquittal, the tribunal could still find against Mr Rayney because it had a different purpose and there was a different standard of proof, meaning the tribunal had to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr Rayney, who is vigorously defending himself, is set to give evidence later in the hearing, which will be the first time he has testified in a public courtroom about any of the allegations levelled at him since his wife’s murder. He has submitted a 170-page statement as part of his case. The board told the tribunal on Tuesday it was unable to serve a summons on its main witness, Timothy Pearson — the man who installed the device for Mr Rayney — to give evidence. The tribunal agreed to accept a bundle of five lever-arch files of Mr Pearson’s witness statements, affidavits and transcripts of his evidence despite Mr Rayney’s defence team strongly objecting to the “extraordinarily unusual” request. Mr Rayney’s lawyer Martin Bennett said his client was greatly disadvantaged by Mr Pearson’s absence and accused the board of trying to prove its case in a “piecemeal” and “mishmash” manner. Mr Cuerden rejected these assertions. “We greatly desire to discuss matters with Mr Pearson. We’re hampered by his absence.” he said. Mr Bennett also accused the board of trying to “go behind” the District Court acquittal. The hearing, before SAT president Justice Jeremy Curthoys and members Maurice Spillane and Patric de Villiers, continues. Tell the community whats on your mind

WHERE IS THE JUSTICE ACCORDED TO ME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW II?

From: Unity Party WA [mailto:info@unitywa.org] Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:11 AM To: Commissioner - C.C.C. Cc: Nicholas N Chin Subject: Re: Your complaint to the CCC [CCC - Unclassified] Dear Mr. Menzies, Would you like to comment, please? Yours sincerely, Eddie Hwang. ************************ Dear Sir 1) Thank you for your response letter dated 26th August 2015 to my Complaint Letter dated 26th June, 2015 bearing Your Ref: 02020/2015/MGMCMIS Auth No: 22830. As anticipated, I regret your invalid decision to my complaint based on the following missing jurisdictional facts (the Missing Jurisdictional Facts): 1.1) the conspiracy to remove my name from the roll of barristers and solicitors (the conspiracy) 1.2) the untruths of the allegations made against me which forms the basis of that conspiracy (the untruths); 1.3 ) the untruths in relation to the findings of the various judges pertaining to the misconduct of my fellow solicitors Mr. Timothy Robin Thies and Mr. David Taylor who breached the rules of the profession and are able to get away with it because of the corrupt conduct of those judges (the corrupt conduct of judicial officers); 1.4) The corrupt conduct of judicial officers was achieved through the devious process of using the untruthful findings of my alleged dishonesty in relation to Ms. Nalini when no property of hers was ever deprived by me and the fact that she withdrew from her complaint (the contrived excuse of the serious misconduct of the judicial officers). 2. Your decision not to investigate the complaint further and to shelve the Complaint made on 26.8.2015 is a non-decision or a CORAM NON-JUDICE on the grounds of the MISSING JURISDICTIONAL FACTS. 3. Your decision is that of a decision maker in the CCC and is equivalent to that of an inferior tribunal and there is no requirement for me to appeal against it for the purpose of setting aside and is an invalid decision (the Invalid Decision). 4. For the Invalid Decision to be valid, you need to address the Missing Jurisdictional Issues in the Reason for Your Decision and you have failed to do this. 5. By reason of the Invalid Decision, you have not performed your duties as is required of you in the public position that you hold and you are not serving the public interests in holding on to that office by not enlivening your authority with that Invalid Decision you have achieved. This situation may be explained by what The Chief Justice of Western Australia Wayne Martin C.J. in the case of Stewart v City of Belmont [2013] WASC 366 (10 October 2013) at paragraph 54 which states: "54 There is, of course, a well-established distinction between jurisdictional facts - facts which must exist in order to enliven jurisdiction, and facts which are to be determined in the course of exercising jurisdiction - see Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Corporation [2000] HCA 5; (2000) 199 CLR 135, 148 [28]; Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32; (2011) 244 CLR 144 (Plaintiff M70). If jurisdiction depends upon the existence of a fact, and if it is established in proceedings for judicial review that the fact does not exist, it will follow that the decision maker has exceeded jurisdiction and relief may be granted (Plaintiff M70; Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission (2010) 239 CLR 531 [72]). On the other hand, if the existence or otherwise of the fact is something to be determined in the course of exercising jurisdiction, it will be for the decisionmaker, and not for the court exercising powers of judicial review to determine whether or not that fact exists" 6. Further Your statutory powers is not enlivened by virtue of the fact that your decision have not met with the criteria or the condition of your decision and therefore Your Invalid Decision may be described as "arbitrary, capricious, irrational and not bona fide as explained below by the High Court of Australia in many cases on Jurisdictional Facts for instance at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdictional_fact where it says, inter alia, the following: 6.1. These criteria of Jurisdiction: 6.1.1. are created by and operate through statute: Timbarra Protection Coalition Inc v Ross Mining NL & Ors [1999] NSWCA 8, at [28]; 6.1.2. may be subjective: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611, at 30; 6.1.3. may be objective in nature and may also be a complex of interactions: Minister for Immigration v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21 at 130 see also R v Hickman (1945) 70 CLR 598 (5 September 1945). 6.2. But These criteria of Jurisdiction must NOT be: 6.2.1. illogical: Minister for Immigration v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21 at 130 see also R v Hickman (1945) 70 CLR 598 (5 September 1945); 6.2.2. capricious and must be actual: Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 [21] (Atkins). 7. And further, you must not lose track of the fact that the former Director of the CCC when he was a Senior Judge of the Supreme Court of WA did let me have a reprieve from the malicious persecution of the LPCC which eventually brought about the conspiracy. My efforts to regain my positon and their favours just eluded my grasp ever so often as there is a never ending leash upon me to stop me from lawyering based upon inadequate reasons and they have to keep finding a valid reason. In the end, they still did not find that reason but they found a way to make me a vexatious litigant and thereby ended my career by taking my name off the roll for no dishonesty or rather a feigned dishonesty. 8. I hope the above will help you to make a proper and valid decision so that I can lay this matter at rest, otherwise, there is going to be an unending nightmare for me to unravels why the State of Western Australia has not delivered even justice to me and my soul will not rest in peace. . Yours faithfully NICHOLAS N CHIN 387 ALEXANDER DRIVE DIANELLA WA 6059 Phone: 0892757440 Mobile: 0421642735.

WHERE IS THE JUSTICE ACCORDED TO ME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW?

From: Eddie Hwang [mailto:eddieh@iinet.net.au] Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 9:31 AM To: eddieh@iinet.net.au Subject: Lloyd Rayney to give evidence in fight to save legal career August 12, 2015 1:57pm - KATE CAMPBELLPerthNow Lloyd Rayney’s appeal against the Legal Practice Board’s decision to cancel his certificate to practise law is set to be heard in October. Picture: File image FORMER prominent Perth barrister Lloyd Rayney is likely to give evidence at a hearing later this year as he fights to save his legal career. It will be the first time Mr Rayney takes to the witness stand to give evidence in a public courtroom on any of the allegations levelled at him since his estranged wife Corryn was murdered in 2007. Mr Rayney is challenging a decision by the Legal Practice Board to cancel his certificate to practise law. In the State Administrative Tribunal on Wednesday, it emerged that former WA Governor and experienced QC Malcolm McCusker will represent Mr Rayney at the appeal hearing scheduled to be held in October. Mr Rayney is appealing to the SAT after the LPB informed him of the cancellation last month over concerns about his behaviour shortly before his Supreme Court registrar wife was murdered – namely allegations he taped conversations with his wife and deliberately disposed of a dictaphone used to record them when he knew police had a search warrant. The Legal Profession Complaints Committee’s investigation of Mr Rayney is ongoing but should be finalised soon, the tribunal was told. Mr Rayney has previously given a commitment to the LPB that he would not engage in legal practice in WA again without first giving 42 days notice. Mr Rayney was acquitted of wilful murder in 2012 and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. The former prosecutor was also acquitted in May of enlisting a surveillance expert to illegally intercept his wife’s landline phone calls after a District Court judge ruled midway through the trial that Mr Rayney had no case to answer. Ms Rayney disappeared after her weekly bootscooting class and was found buried in Kings Park in August 2007. Mr Rayney’s is suing the State Government for defamation after a senior detective labelled him the “prime” and “only” suspect in his wife’s murder about a month after she was killed. A cold case review of Mrs Rayney’s unsolved murder was launched in May.

ADMISSIBLITY OF MATERIAL RELEVANT TO PENALTY AT THE LIABILITY STAGE: AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY BLOG

The Australian Professional Liability Blog Admissibility of material relevant to penalty at the liability stage Posted: 07 Oct 2015 01:01 AM PDT In my experience, the Legal Services Commissioner generally assumes that material relevant to penalty is inadmissible at the liability stage. So, for example, the Commissioner applied recently for leave to re-cross-examine a practitioner in a disciplinary hearing, after the close of evidence, in order to adduce evidence relevant to penalty by reference to ‘disciplinary priors’, even though the practitioner did not propose to give further evidence. I knew there was some case which said that under legislation cognate with the Legal Profession Act 2004 there is, in law, just one hearing, but it is one of those many authorities which, despite this blog, got away from me, never to be found again. But now I have stumbled across it again, and here it is, from Puryer v Legal Services Commissioner [2012] QCA 300, a unanimous decision: ‘[33] The written submissions filed by the Legal Services Commissioner on 11 May 2011 dealt with penalty as well as the charges and gave details of findings of professional misconduct against the appellant on two earlier occasions. It was submitted that the only appropriate penalty was the removal of the appellant’s name from the roll. The appellant, in response, said that there was no evidence of his previous breaches; that his antecedents were only relevant and should only be placed before the tribunal if an adverse finding were made; and that the paragraphs dealing with penalty were prejudicial and should be struck out. [34] In oral submissions, the appellant’s counsel conceded that he could not point to anything in the tribunal’s reasons which showed that it had used the information about the appellant’s previous breaches in considering whether the charges were made out. Indeed he rejected any suggestion that the deliberations of the judicial member of the tribunal could have been affected by the material. He could not point to any prejudice to his client and did not put his submission any higher than that it would be good practice, where the tribunal consisted of lay members as well as a judicial member, to separate submissions about penalty from those about liability. [35] Section 456(1) of the Legal Profession Act provides as follows: “456 Decisions of tribunal about an Australian legal practitioner (1) If, after the tribunal has completed a hearing of a discipline application in relation to a complaint or an investigation matter against an Australian legal practitioner, the tribunal is satisfied that the practitioner has engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, the tribunal may make any order as it thinks fit, including any 1 or more of the orders stated in this section.” That section appears to envisage that the tribunal may make its order upon the necessary satisfaction without necessarily conducting any further hearing. Counsel for the appellant very properly drew the court’s attention to the fact that in Madden’s case the notion of a two-step proceeding was rejected; instead, it was said that s 456 “contemplate[d] a hearing followed by both the findings of any proved misconduct and the imposition of the appropriate penalty for that misconduct”.[12] Generally speaking, it is not a denial of natural justice for a disciplinary body to receive submissions on both charge and penalty at the same time, provided the person charged has been given the opportunity to address on penalty should the question of guilt be resolved against him.[13] Here, the appellant had the opportunity – although he did not take it – to respond to the Legal Services Commissioner’s submissions on penalty. [36] The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence or the practice or procedures of courts of record; it may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate; and it is required to act with as little formality and technicality with as much speed as the requirements of the Act in consideration of the matters before it permit.[14] Nonetheless, it must act on probative evidence, and there was no suggestion here that the previous breaches were relevant to the proof of the charges as, for example, similar fact evidence. But as counsel for the appellant conceded, there is no basis for supposing that the reference in the submissions to prior breaches affected the tribunal’s deliberations on whether the appellant was guilty of the charges. He did not contend, in my view correctly, that what was done rose to the level of an abuse of process. [37] However, as counsel for the appellant also submitted, the practice of putting in submissions on penalty in the same document as submissions on liability is generally undesirable. Apart from anything else, until it is known what charges have been found proved it will usually be difficult to make useful submissions; and, if adverse material in relation to antecedents is not put forward as probative on liability, the risk exists of its having a prejudicial effect. One would think, in general, that unless there were some agreement to adopt a different approach, the better course would be to give each party an opportunity to make submissions once the findings on the charges were made.’

THE EXTENDED DURATION OF THE UN-RENEWED PRACTISING CERTIFICATE: THE AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY BLOG

The Australian Professional Liability Blog The extended duration of the un-renewed practising certificate Posted: 07 Oct 2015 05:16 PM PDT Under the Legal Profession Act 2004, if a lawyer applied for renewal of their practising certificate prior to the expiry of the old one, but a decision was not made before the old one runs out, the certificate is extended until either it is renewed or a decision to refuse renewal is finally determined by the exhaustion of all rights of review of that decision. No one has ever really known what that meant. There is a statutory review procedure in VCAT and then there are appeals all the way to the High Court. Are the appeals from the review ‘a right of review of the decision’? The Supreme Court has now determined that the certificate endures (if not earlier cancelled or suspended by the stipes) until the end of the High Court appeal. The question arose in Batrouney v Forster (No 2) [2015] VSC 541, handed down by Justice Robson yesterday (see paras [167] – [193]). It represents a further embarrassment for the Legal Services Board appointed receivers of David Forster’s practice, Hollows Lawyers, with a savage series of costs orders against the receivers in Mr Forster’s favour. That followed findings that the receivers’ proceedings were in part misconceived, and that they breached more than one provision of the Civil Procedure Act 2010. The question was at what point did Mr Forster cease to hold a practising certificate and so cease to be entitled to claim costs of acting for himself under the Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403 at 411–413 exception to the rule that self-represented litigants are not entitled to costs for work done by themselves. The question is a matter of significance to practitioners who get themselves fairly deep into trouble. It means that those whose practising certificates are not renewed may continue to practice and earn income to put towards the legal costs of challenging that decision, and it also means that such practitioners may brief counsel directly in circumstances where, by virtue of Bar rules about direct access, they might not otherwise be able to. And of course, it also means that if successful in such proceedings, they will get a costs indemnity against the time spent running their litigation. Mr Forster is a man with his back to the wall, the subject of an avalanche of litigation brought by professional regulators. Until recently, he had been singularly unsuccessful and much chastised. It is probably fair to say that some people in the administration of justice, including the profession, would see him as a pariah. It ought therefore be of some comfort to those responsible for the justice system that this result has obtained. It suggests that the cab rank principle is alive and well, that judges are capable of dealing with each case impartially on its merits and according to law without being unduly influenced by past cases, and that the State will not protect itself where the law requires that it be dealt with.

UNITED NATIONS ROLE OF LAWYERS

Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers  Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the  Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, 27 August to 7 September 1990      Whereas in the Charter of the United Nations the peoples of the world affirm, inter alia,  their determination to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained, and  proclaim as one of their purposes the achievement of international cooperation in  promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without  distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,    Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the principles of equality  before the law, the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair and public hearing by an  independent and impartial tribunal, and all the guarantees necessary for the defence of  everyone charged with a penal offence,    Whereas the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaims, in addition, the  right to be tried without undue delay and the right to a fair and public hearing by a  competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law,    Whereas the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recalls the  obligation of States under the Charter to promote universal respect for, and observance of,  human rights and freedoms,    Whereas the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of  Detention or Imprisonment provides that a detained person shall be entitled to have the  assistance of, and to communicate and consult with, legal counsel,    Whereas the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners recommend, in  particular, that legal assistance and confidential communication with counsel should be  ensured to untried prisoners,    Whereas the Safe guards guaranteeing protection of those facing the death penalty reaffirm  the right of everyone suspected or charged with a crime for which capital punishment may  be imposed to adequate legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings, in accordance with  article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,    Whereas the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of  Power recommends measures to be taken at the international and national levels to  improve access to justice and fair treatment, restitution, compensation and assistance for  victims of crime,    Whereas adequate protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms to which all  persons are entitled, be they economic, social and cultural, or civil and political, requires  that all persons have effective access to legal services provided by an independent legal  profession,    Whereas professional associations of lawyers have a vital role to play in upholding  professional standards and ethics, protecting their members from persecution and improper  restrictions and infringements, providing legal services to all in need of them, and  cooperating with governmental and other institutions in furthering the ends of justice and  public interest, The Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, set forth below, which have  been formulated to assist Member States in their task of promoting and ensuring the proper  role of lawyers, should be respected and taken into account by Governments within the  framework of their national legislation and practice and should be brought to the attention  of lawyers as well as other persons, such as judges, prosecutors, members of the executive  and the legislature, and the public in general. These principles shall also apply, as  appropriate, to persons who exercise the functions of lawyers without having the formal  status of lawyers.    Access to lawyers and legal services    1. All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer of their choice to protect  and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings.    2. Governments shall ensure that efficient procedures and responsive mechanisms for  effective and equal access to lawyers are provided for all persons within their territory and  subject to their jurisdiction, without distinction of any kind, such as discrimination based on  race, colour, ethnic origin, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or  social origin, property, birth, economic or other status.    3. Governments shall ensure the provision of sufficient funding and other resources for legal  services to the poor and, as necessary, to other disadvantaged persons. Professional  associations of lawyers shall cooperate in the organization and provision of services, facilities  and other resources.    4. Governments and professional associations of lawyers shall promote programmes to  inform the public about their rights and duties under the law and the important role of  lawyers in protecting their fundamental freedoms. Special attention should be given to  assisting the poor and other disadvantaged persons so as to enable them to assert their  rights and where necessary call upon the assistance of lawyers.    Special safeguards in criminal justice matters    5. Governments shall ensure that all persons are immediately informed by the competent  authority of their right to be assisted by a lawyer of their own choice upon arrest or  detention or when charged with a criminal offence.    6. Any such persons who do not have a lawyer shall, in all cases in which the interests of  justice so require, be entitled to have a lawyer of experience and competence  commensurate with the nature of the offence assigned to them in order to provide effective  legal assistance, without payment by them if they lack sufficient means to pay for such  services.    7. Governments shall further ensure that all persons arrested or detained, with or without  criminal charge, shall have prompt access to a lawyer, and in any case not later than fortyeight hours from the time of arrest or detention.    8. All arrested, detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate  opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a  lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and in full confidentiality. Such  consultations may be within sight, but not within the hearing, of law enforcement officials.    Qualifications and training    9. Governments, professional associations of lawyers and educational institutions shall  ensure that lawyers have appropriate education and training and be made aware of the  ideals and ethical duties of the lawyer and of human rights and fundamental freedoms  recognized by national and international law.    10. Governments, professional associations of lawyers and educational institutions shall  ensure that there is no discrimination against a person with respect to entry into or  continued practice within the legal profession on the grounds of race, colour, sex, ethnic  origin, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, economic  or other status, except that a requirement, that a lawyer must be a national of the country  concerned, shall not be considered discriminatory.    11. In countries where there exist groups, communities or regions whose needs for legal  services are not met, particularly where such groups have distinct cultures, traditions or  languages or have been the victims of past discrimination, Governments, professional  associations of lawyers and educational institutions should take special measures to provide  opportunities for candidates from these groups to enter the legal profession and should  ensure that they receive training appropriate to the needs of their groups.    Duties and responsibilities    12. Lawyers shall at all times maintain the honour and dignity of their profession as essential  agents of the administration of justice.    13. The duties of lawyers towards their clients shall include:    (a) Advising clients as to their legal rights and obligations, and as to the working of the legal  system in so far as it is relevant to the legal rights and obligations of the clients;    (b) Assisting clients in every appropriate way, and taking legal action to protect their  interests;    (c) Assisting clients before courts, tribunals or administrative authorities, where appropriate.    14. Lawyers, in protecting the rights of their clients and in promoting the cause of justice,  shall seek to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by national and  international law and shall at all times act freely and diligently in accordance with the law  and recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession.    15. Lawyers shall always loyally respect the interests of their clients.    Guarantees for the functioning of lawyers    16. Governments shall ensure that lawyers (a) are able to perform all of their professional  functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b) are able  to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad;  and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or  other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties,  standards and ethics.    17. Where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions,  they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.    18. Lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of  discharging their functions.    19. No court or administrative authority before whom the right to counsel is recognized shall  refuse to recognize the right of a lawyer to appear before it for his or her client unless that  lawyer has been disqualified in accordance with national law and practice and in conformity  with these principles.    20. Lawyers shall enjoy civil and penal immunity for relevant statements made in good faith  in written or oral pleadings or in their professional appearances before a court, tribunal or  other legal or administrative authority.    21. It is the duty of the competent authorities to ensure lawyers access to appropriate  information, files and documents in their possession or control in sufficient time to enable  lawyers to provide effective legal assistance to their clients. Such access should be provided  at the earliest appropriate time.    22. Governments shall recognize and respect that all communications and consultations  between lawyers and their clients within their professional relationship are confidential.    Freedom of expression and association    23. Lawyers like other citizens are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and  assembly. In particular, they shall have the right to take part in public discussion of matters  concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of  human rights and to join or form local, national or international organizations and attend  their meetings, without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful action or  their membership in a lawful organization. In exercising these rights, lawyers shall always  conduct themselves in accordance with the law and the recognized standards and ethics of  the legal profession.    Professional associations of lawyers    24. Lawyers shall be entitled to form and join self‐governing professional associations to  represent their interests, promote their continuing education and training and protect their  professional integrity. The executive body of the professional associations shall be elected by  its members and shall exercise its functions without external interference.    25. Professional associations of lawyers shall cooperate with Governments to ensure that  everyone has effective and equal access to legal services and that lawyers are able, without  improper interference, to counsel and assist their clients in accordance with the law and  recognized professional standards and ethics.    Disciplinary proceedings    26. Codes of professional conduct for lawyers shall be established by the legal profession  through its appropriate organs, or by legislation, in accordance with national law and custom  and recognized international standards and norms.    27. Charges or complaints made against lawyers in their professional capacity shall be  processed expeditiously and fairly under appropriate procedures. Lawyers shall have the  right to a fair hearing, including the right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choice.    28. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers shall be brought before an impartial disciplinary  committee established by the legal profession, before an independent statutory authority,  or before a court, and shall be subject to an independent judicial review.    29. All disciplinary proceedings shall be determined in accordance with the code of  professional conduct and other recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession and  in the light of these principles.