The Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council Gagik Jhangiryan made a speech recently, expressing an opinion on the vetting of advocates.

Iravaban.net talked to Advocate Tigran Yegoryan about the topic.

“I want to pay special attention to the fact that during the previous three years there was such uncertainty about that word ‘vetting’. One side perceive the meaning of vetting as beheading some people, and the other side as dismemberment. While we explained that it was a completely different process. Today a new general perception has been gained due to intensive and active discussions. Now, when you attribute it to lawyers, it is incomprehensible to me what exactly is perceived under the so-called “vetting of the advocates”” Tigran Yegoryan said.

He mentioned that within the framework of the reform of the advocacy institute, his position includes 2 proposals.

“There are two options here, one is a serious reform of the current system, and the second way is the division of one chamber into unions, which will ensure the level of counterbalance, mutual restraint, efficiency and integrity that we pursue. Conventionally saying “vetting”; the most important thing is the raised standards, which should be done in two ways: either the unions, competing with each other, will provide higher standards for lawyers or the tools will be provided in one community, which will provide us with high professional and ethical standards. Now, can this be considered a vetting or not, I will find it difficult to say, but I imagine this way,” the lawyer said.

According to Tigran Yegoryan , there is a significant difference between officials and non-officials, and in relation to the extent that “vetting” is considered, for example the issue of judicial reform cannot be put before the advocacy.

“But the problem here, as it has existed and has been existing for a long time, and various lawyers have raised this issue regularly, including me, will bring the ways I have already described to the solution of that problem. And judging by these recent elections, it is more obvious to me that the option of splitting the unions will be more realistic and effective than the reform of a single, grand chamber, which, I think, even if it were possible, would be very slow and with incomprehensible rates and results,” Tigran Yegoryan said.

Referring to the issue that Gagik Jhangiryan justified his opinion on the fact that today many lawyers are gaining recognition, as they very easily communicate with law enforcement agencies and courts in various cases, the lawyer said ․

“It is either a criminal manifestation or, at best, a gross ethical violation. Naturally, we had revelations and facts about both the first and second cases, now work must be done in this regard, that is, work in this regard must be carried out both, through law enforcement agencies and the chamber. This is a phenomenon in connection with which the relevant bodies and organizations must constantly work.”