It is always a good thing to revisit what has been in operation for more than a generation. The Law Practitioners Act is one such case which is in urgent need of modernisation and overhauling. However much people in the legal profession sincerely believe that their profession is fine and really upholding the high ideals set out in the Code of Conduct, the truth is that a great deal of soul-searching is now urgent.

The number of lawyers has exploded with the result that the original thinking that it was alright for some lawyers to control the lion?s share of the workload because they could be trusted not to place themselves in situations of conflict no longer holds. The legal profession can no longer afford to be the preserver of a few privileged firms or lawyers. Of all professional bodies, the legal profession must be absolutely transparent and open.

The amendment being brought by the Government to the Law Practitioners act is a marvellous opportunity for changes to be made in order to bring the legal profession to speed with what obtains in other mature jurisdictions particularly in sensitive areas like conflicts of interests. These issues must be fully addressed.

The legal profession must live with the inevitability and reality of globalisation. The only thing with globalisation which is worrying is that it tends to give to the developed countries the possibility to extract compromises from developing countries which the former are not prepared to relinquish. Reciprocity must be the cornerstone for the liberalisation of legal services. While it is in order for any foreign law firm to be granted authorisation to set up offices here, such authorisation must be conditional that the country of that foreign law firm grants the same treatment to our lawyers.

Since the trend is towards the setting up of firms, it is imperative that lawyers in such firms who represent one client are barred from representing the opposing side. This is not a matter to be left to the conscience of the lawyer concerned as to whether or not there is a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interests must be gauged through measurable and objective tests and standards and not by the subjective musings of an individual lawyer. Justice, we usually say, must not only be done but be seen to be done. Unfortunately no one can see what goes on in a person?s conscience, however reputable that person is. One example of conflict of interest would certainly arise when a law firm is providing legal services to the Central Bank and that firm is also doing the same for commercial banks.

The opportunity must also be seized to de-ethnicise the legal profession which runs the serious risk of being incest-prone. All major corporations and parastatal bodies must tender out their legal services. This happens in large countries and equality of opportunity demands that we adopt the same practice. If Government is serious about the issue of democratisation, then this is a good area to start.

The state Law Office at present provides legal services to various parastatal bodies. That must stop. This is another glaring example of how conflicts of interests are tolerated. The cleaning up must start. Now.