I am an optimist and I do not take the idea of ​​the SJC Acting Chairman seriously. Lawyer Karen Mezhlumyan said this in a conversation with Iravaban.net, referring to the speech of the Acting Chairman of the Supreme Judicial Council Gagik Jhangiryan a few days ago, where the latter expressed an opinion on the vetting of lawyers, saying, “I can say that the process of cleaning and purification should also refer to the advocates’ service, because, unfortunately, it is accepted in our country, for the most part, I do not want to offend anyone, but there are advocates who communicate with law enforcement agencies and courts in various cases very easily get recognition. In other words, this vetting must include the entire judicial system and all the bodies that serve and support it.” 

Karen Mezhlumyan mentioned that the President of the Chamber of Advocates had issued  a statement about that words of the Acting Chairperson of the Supreme Judicial Council, which he shares.

“In any case, I would like to note that advocacy, as an institution, has been raised to the constitutional level and Article 64 of the Constitution guarantees the independence and self-governance of advocacy.

Advocacy, in turn, is considered a human rights activity by law. The Supreme Judicial Council is a state body, and the person exercising the powers of the head of that state body cannot and should not allow himself to speak about the vetting of advocates,” the advocate said.

According to Mezhlumyan, however, if such an attempt is made, it will definitely be assessed as an encroachment on the independence of advocates, and that encroachment will have bad consequences for the initiators.

“If the state bodies take steps to vet advocates, the advocacy community will definitely respond to it, both in the legal field and through other means of public pressure,” he said.

Referring to the fact that Gagik Jhangiryan based his opinion on the fact that today many lawyers are gaining recognition, as they are very easy to communicate with law enforcement agencies and courts in various cases, the lawyer said, “When Gagik Jhangiryan was a military prosecutor, it was possible that there was a problem, because at that time there were also so-called ‘pocket lawyers/advocates’, a phenomenon that disappeared along with the establishment and development of the institute of Public Defender.”

Mezhlumyan also mentioned that if the hint of “communication” is about the possible corrupt nature of some advocates and law enforcement officers and judges, then in the last 5-6 years the possible corruption risks have significantly decreased and, if such cases occur, then every case of corruption should be dealt with by law enforcement and not by the vetting of advocates.

Karen Mezhlumyan suggests forgetting about vetting of advocates․ “Nothing should be applied, advocacy is one of the most established institutions in our country, and there is no objective need for any intervention.”

Speaking about the claims of a number of experts in the context of the reform of the Advocacy Institute that the reform could be carried out by dividing one chamber into unions, the lawyer said that dividing one Chamber of Advocates into several unions would obviously weaken advocacy and ease pressure on advocates.

“Let me make a historical hint. The Bar Association operated in Armenia since Soviet times. In 1998, the Law on Advocacy was adopted, after which three Bar Associations were established. Maybe there was a need for it then. Advocacy developed and it became necessary for advocates (to have common rules of conduct, one body of disciplinary responsibility, the same criteria for qualification examination, the need to jointly withstand the pressures of state bodies, etc.) to create a single body of advocacy. The Law on Advocacy was adopted in 2004, after which the Chamber of Advocates was established, which laid the foundation for the further development and strengthening of the Advocacy Institute,” Karen Mezhlumyan concluded.

Lusine Hakobyan