Upper age limit for enrollment as advocate

I have learned from other threads that there is no such limit as such. There is a case pending in Supreme Court by Bar Council for setting up the age limit.

 

As far as why age limit should not set? Here is my thought:

(1) The legal profession (practicing at court) is not same as other professions such as Doctors.

(2) This profession has special status and is considered noble and a service to society; thus it is not for making money or livelihood etc

(3) From the letter and spirit of this profession, as conceived in Indian judicial system, the role of an advocate is best played by people who are not working for money. Thus one is expected to have enough money to lead a life so that they can practice this noble profession of helping the court and those who needs the support of the law.

(4) In India, a practicing advocate is considered an officer of the court (legally speaking) and thus matured, well read and public spirited and righteous people are needed for this profession. Naturally young people may not fit this requirement at young age and it is not their fault. It is natural.

So, considering all of the above, it is strongly advisable that there should be no age limit for this profession and in fact we should encourage older and successful people to study and practice law and offer their services to all those who needs it...

Sir,

I deviate from your view of Imparting legal education in india on the following grounds:-

1.) ''Too many cooks spoils the food''. This proverb shall well be suitable for the legal education in india. Which needs a filter.

2.) Legal education must be stream lined similarly in all the states in india. Legal education or the bar is not a charitable institution which takes all the old age people or the retired persons who after their employment seeks a place for their livelihood. Can any one gurantee people who are at matured age or old age are better than young people. If you train young people well they shall be well suited in future.

Hence the basic reformation would be first introduce age limit in legal education or atleast upper age limit to be fixed for enrollment of advocate in the respective barcouncils all over india.

 

I request & openly invite all the members of this ''lawyers club india'' to participate in this discussion

 

Regards

Krishnakumar

---

Dear krishnakumar,

This is a topic that I am very interested in and thus I will be following up.... here are my quick comments on your thoughts...

 

On point#1: Too many cooks.. this has nothing to do with this topic as there are already too many law colleges and education as such should be open to all...but you may want to limit as to who can register with the Bar Council for practice...This is the point of discussion in this thread.

 

On point#2: firstly you are saying that this is not charitable profession.. I beg to differ with the support of many supreme court judgements which I shall share later... It is the Supreme Court that has categorically said that this profession is a noble profession (which is much more than charitable) and bars advertising and also has many other restrictions for that reason.... Secondly,  you are claiming that the old people take up this job for making livelihood... Now what is likely? young people making a living out of this profession or old and accomplished people making a living out of this profession? The answer is obvious... the older people are more likely to have less need for money (I am not saying all, but most in comparison to young people)... It sounds like you are prejudiced from this point of view.... I know many elderly folks do this for public interest .... and there may be some who may make as well but overall most would do this job for the passion, IMHO.

 

Also, the legal education and practicing is not one and the same. Everyone has the right to educate and get a degree but who should be allowed to practice as attorney is what we should be discussing here...

 

Lastly, the topic that is dealt in Criminal, Civil and Constitutional laws are something that is difficult to appreciate when we are young, unlike other science, engg and medical fields.... Law deals with rights of people, social obligations etc... while there are young people who are very socially minded but most young would not appreciate it as it takes time to appreciate the same and also there are other things that attracts young people during their young age....

 

The question thus is not about who is capable to do this job, but who is in a right position to do this job of being an attorney at a court of law...

 

Let me give you an actual story that I encountered few months ago:

Someone filed a false case against me because I am the secretary of a home owners association. This was a  summons case and thus was posted in a fast track court for summary trial.

 

I didn't want to go thru the trial as I was upset that the judicial process can be abused with the help of corrupt police. So I asked my young lawyer to file a release petition u/s. 258 of CrPC but he says it cannot be done. The public prosecutor with @10 years of experience says it is not possible. The magistrate with 30+ years of experience says it is not possible... I forced my lawyer to file the petition anyways, but the magistrate is not accepting... I then took permission to speak to the magistrate and convinced him and the PP to take the application and reject it with whatever they think is the law... Once I get the rejection order, I then took that order to High Court and got a stay and I expect that the High Court will also stop the proceeding against me eventually...

 

Note: None of the lawyers that I consulted, some are very senior lawyers in High Court, said that this was possible..

 

So, what does the above incident tells us? 

Here is a judgement that could be useful here...

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178707931/

Dear Gentleman,

Without going into the nuances and indetail my point is simple. The agelimit should be brought in either in the admission in law colleges or while enrollment of advocates in respective barcouncils all over india.

Legal field is the only field that at any point of time, Person at any age group can come. It is only a myth that older people are capable more. There is no field that younger people could do less than others.

How can a quality and capable lawyers could be produced. One among many ways to bring quality, potential in this field is the following:-

 

1. Let there be a agelimit say 30 for entering into law colleges.

2. Those who are above the age say 30 if argue studying law is their birthright and constitution guarantees and all. Let them study law very well but should not be allowed into profession or be allowed to enroll themselves in the barcouncils.

3. The law colleges which have mushroomed in yesterday's rain must be closed forthwith.

4. Legal education must be streamlined uniformly all over india.

5. Regards,Krishnakumar

Dear Krishnakumar, 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not entitled to unilaterally force their views on to someone else. If you would like to convince and rally support for your view then it is imperative that you bring out data and reasoning thereof to substantiate your views/suggestions.

There is no point in arguing against the fact that everyone is entitled to educating themselves at their expense.

Lawyering for others is not a right as such. Why should I appoint a lawyer to argue on my behalf while I am convinced that I can take care of myself? So, it is only a privilege to help others!

Further, where is the data that shows that the quality of lawyers have gone down due to older aged people getting into this profession? Without data anyone can make any statement... what is the worthiness of such statements?  Go to ay High Court in the country and you will see more than 90% of lawyers quality in ALL age groups are not good.

I have dealt with lawyers for the last 5 years and I must say that there are only few good ones...I am talking about people who graduated when there were only few law colleges. People do well in their profession mostly do so when they are passionate about the same. This has nothing to do with bad people getting into the profession. If there are good lawyers then why would people chose bad lawyers? If bad lawyers are not getting cases then that should solve the problem (natural solution).... Let the litigant citizens decide who is good or bad...

If I am to write about the hardships that the general public go thru then that will take pages.... starting with unlimited fees by putting the litigant at the mercy of the lawyer, no receipts for fees, unnecessarily harassing the litigants by shuttling them to the court even when they are not required to.... not communicating properly to their client even though everyone has phone an SMS facilities...unnecessary adjournments even though the law only provides a maximum of 3 etc....

The service of most lawyers leaves much to be desired and that is one of the reason why most people do LLB when they are retired or in middle age... lawyers expect the client to shuttle both to the court and to their office even though most of it can be taken care of on the phone..

Similarly, most lawyers do not want their client to make any suggestion. If they do then the lawyers tend to avoid such clients, why? A patient knows his pains best, similarly an educated client knows his case best.. he may not be a law expert but he is the master of facts for his case... I have seen affidavits are written by lawyers on behalf of clients with incorrect facts and force the client to sign the same. If the client says that the facts are wrong then the lawyer doesn't like it...

Anyways, there is no proof lack of age limit is a factor in poor quality of lawyers.

 

 

Dear Gentleman, Dear Mr.Gentleman, The proof is the pending cases in supreme court regarding the agelimit is itself a proof indeed. I can come up with the cases pending in supremecourt. Absolutely there is no problem in getting legal education at their own cost. My submission is that there must be an eligibility criteria and that criteria is Agelimit{ since it is basic] atleast in the entry to the profession. ''This has nothing to do with bad people getting into the profession. If there are good lawyers then why would people chose bad lawyers? If bad lawyers are not getting cases then that should solve the problem (natural solution).... Let the litigant citizens decide who is good or bad...'' When you are streamlining a profession and regulating it definitely the litigants shall choose the same. But the litigants cannot bring the changes or regulation to the profession. I hope so much committees would have dealt with the matter what we are now discussing[ upper agelimit in legal education as well as entry into the profession]. Since I am handicapped with out much proof and I am only talking with the practical knowledge since am there in the profession for last 5 years. Hope if we can invite friends on the forum we can surely get a very good inputs furhter in this topic.

Again, simply repeating that there should be an age limit as one of the criteria is illogical. I have not seen one example as to in what way(s) the age limit is hurting the profession currently and how it will mitigate etc. let us bring out specific examples...

I am NOT at all suggesting that there should not be a criteria. But the criteria should be much more encompassing than the age limit. As a matter of fact we could up level the quality without having to worry about the age limit. As a public with bit of personal experience at courts and lawyers, I can honestly say and prove that the following are the major gaps in many lawyers.

[ Note: I recently met and working with a young lawyer @10 yrs exp and he agrees with me on many of these points]

1. Most do not want to read and update themselves.. no interested in research at all (on relevant topics)

2. Most do not have the comprehension skills needed for drafting petitions and counters etc. and articualtion

3. Most cannot speak and communicate effectively in a court halls

4. Most lack basic logical reasoning skills..

5. Most, above all, do not have the passion for the profession... founded on protecting the rights of their clients..

The above is true of most judges at lower courts...

An example of not reading & updating is the need for personal appearance of the accused in Summons cases.. Can you imagine how many people are robbed of their liberty almost everyday due to this? Go to any criminal court and see the call work... courts, lawyers and public prosecutors alike expect the accused to show up at the court in every hearing even though in more than 90% of the appearances it is simply giving another date. The magistrates have an obligation and power to stop this abuse, the lawyer can do this and so can the public prosecutor... but no one does...This example highlights most of my points above...

I am open to have a comprehensive and qualitative tests before inducting into the bar association and also require that they re-register every 5 years... this is what happens with medical practitioners in USA and other developed countries....

I fully support that mere possession of a law degree is NOT enough.. but this has nothing to do with the age...

I welcome everyone to chime in with your well reasoned thoughts on this topic...

Cheers!