The Ministry of Justice has developed a Draft Law “On Making Amendments and Addenda to the Law on Advocacy” within the framework of the strategic direction of the reform of advocacy sector. It has not yet been submitted for public discussion, but was sent to the Chamber of Advocates and all acting advocates for collection of preliminary opinions. Iravaban.net has started a series of interviews, which aims to present the observations and opinions of the advocacy community on the proposed changes.

We talked about the topic with lawyer Gevorg Gyozalyan.

– In your opinion, what is the objective for implementing such changes?

– Those changes should have been made earlier. It is another matter that the Ministry of Justice should make some clarifications regarding the details, because the draft that is being circulated only partially solves the problems that the legal community is facing today.

The Law on Advocacy was adopted in 2004 and since then very few changes have been made in that law. It is not that that law fully regulated the legal relations connected with this institution.

–One of the proposed changes refers to the review of the role of the Board of the Chamber of Advocates and the Chairman of the Chamber in the executive management relations of the Chamber of Advocates, giving priority to collegial management. How do you feel about this proposed change?

– When I participated in the elections of the Chairman of the Chamber of Advocates, I made that proposal myself and of course I cannot give a negative assessment to it, because just that was put in my pre-election program. Not to destroy this system, not to break its backbone, it means that we will once again have the cases when the Chairman of the Chamber of Advocates becomes the Director of the School of Advocates and the Director of the School of advocates becomes the Chairman of the Chamber: The names do not matter here – suppose Poghos wants to use those mechanisms constantly, someone would always be there. Now the backbone of this matter must be broken. If half-dissolves, it is not that it completely closes that vicious phenomenon, but it is a solution. If it is possible to provide that authority to the collegial body, in this sense they will break the backbone of that system in a certain sense.

Another question is that with that draft they again left that one lawyer can elect several council members. This is a problem. That is, the concept of one voice, one principle must work. A lawyer can vote for a council member so that the vicious list elections that exist and of which we are the victim, of going to the polls as a result of phone calls, without looking at anything.․․․ It is possible to fight against this with one voice, one principle format. The fact that the Chairman of the Chamber of Advocates should have limited powers is not subject to discussion.

– One of the proposals for changes refers to the possibility that the Public Defender’s Office will be able to organize public protection of persons through other persons who are not public defenders. Will the change be appropriate?

-Definitely. The state, if I am not mistaken, allocates 300 million drams to the Public Defender’s Office, and how it is used there is a big burden, even if we proceed from the presumption that there are very brilliant specialists who are not engaged in any other activity and are engaged only in public defense..

Of course, the practice shows something else that the public defenders are hired part-time, they both do public defense there and do private work, and this inevitably affects the quality. And taxpayers pay 300 million drams a year for that.

If they take this burden, and put it on a voluntary basis on the lawyers who will do it, this is definitely welcomed. According to the draft, they seem to be trying to give a half-solution to this issue again. Not that I am impressed, but it is solution.

I think that in general the attractiveness of that public defender, which makes to go and become the Chairman of the chamber, should be liberalized. And why should the Public Defender’s Office do that, let them liberalize it, let them announce a tender, make it a mandatory condition that the public defense must be done by lawyers, but not some structure, because that 300 million is tempting for that structure. Most of the time, these are the expenses that also allow the Chamber of Advocates to buy cars and company vehicles. Let them liberalize. For example, if a company has a 50-member contract staff, why not take that public protection? Why does the Chamber of Advocates have to do that? Advocacy offices should also be given an opportunity.

– Mr. Gyozalyan, which of the other changes proposed by the Ministry of Justice are problematic and what are the risks on the way to their implementation?

– It remains problematic for me that the monopoly of the Chamber of Advocates should be abolished. There should not be a one compulsory chamber and people should not be forced to join that chamber to practice law, membership is a voluntary principle, it should be voluntary and I should have an alternative, every lawyer should have an alternative. There is no alternative here. This problem has not been solved by the draft. I consider it one of the main shortcomings of this draft.

– How do the advocates perceive the proposed changes? Do you associate them with the results of the recent election of the Chairman of the Chamber?

– This draft has existed in the Ministry of Justice for a long time. It was led by the same Chamber of Advocates, with its various bodies, councils, etc. It is not that this draft is new. Before the revolution, this draft was already adopted in a completely different form, after the revolution it failed and it remained in a suitable drawer of the Ministry of Justice.

Now it has become fashionable to associate everything with some political processes.

Hasmik Sargsyan