Press Conference: A Misguided BARROC Election – Self-Centeredness Prevails, But Where Are Lawyer Self-Regulation and Social Public Interest?

Postal voting for the election of the first chairperson, directors, supervisors, and member representatives of the Taiwan National Bar Association (BARROC) has already begun, with vote counting and election results scheduled to be announced on August 15. Dubbed by the media as the most fiercely contested bar association election in history, the focus has centered entirely on interest-driven issues such as membership fees, attorney fees, and the scope of practice. This has sparked criticisms that the election is merely an infighting among interest groups and fails to win the respect of society.

Article 1 of the Attorney Regulation Act explicitly stipulates that "Attorneys have the mission of protecting human rights, realizing social justice, and promoting democracy and the rule of law. Based on the mission set forth in the preceding paragraph and grounded in the spirit of self-regulation and autonomy, attorneys shall faithfully and sincerely perform their duties, uphold social justice, and improve the legal system," emphasizing the public-interest nature of the legal profession. However, examining the public-interest-related campaign platforms of the two major competing factions in this election—the Taiwan Lawyers Team and the National Lawyers Team—all of their appeals stem from the protection of their own interests. Examples include gradually promoting mandatory legal representation by attorneys in civil cases, striving for BARROC's right to petition for constitutional interpretation, increasing legal aid remuneration, and securing tax exemptions for public-interest activities. Rarely do they show concern for matters of public interest vital to the nation's well-being and people's livelihood, such as judicial reform, social public welfare, and lawyer self-regulation; some even advocate for relaxing ethical norms regarding lawyer self-regulation.

Our Foundation discovered that this election lacked policy debates on public interest. Consequently, on June 11, we raised five major questions for the BARROC candidates:

1. From the perspective of BARROC, what are the most urgent issues for future judicial reform? How should efforts be made to promote the development of the rule of law and protect human rights?
2. What role should BARROC play in social reform issues other than judicial reform in the future?
3. Article 37 of the new Attorney Regulation Act stipulates that attorneys shall participate in legal aid, grassroots legal services, or other social public-interest activities, and authorizes BARROC to determine the types, minimum hours, methods, and handling of violations regarding attorneys' participation in social public-interest activities. In this regard, how should BARROC define and what should be the scope of "other social public-interest activities" outside of legal aid and grassroots legal services? How can attorneys be encouraged and strengthened to participate in "other social public-interest activities"?
4. What are the current problems in the attorney autonomy, self-regulation, and disciplinary systems? Following the implementation of the new Act, how should these systems be improved and strengthened to unleash the proactive nature of the self-regulatory mechanism?
5. Article 75 of the new Act stipulates that BARROC shall establish a Lawyer Ethics and Disciplinary Committee to handle appeals concerning attorney ethics code violations; no less than one-third of the members shall be socially impartial individuals who are currently not practicing attorneys. It also authorizes BARROC to determine the number, qualifications, selection methods, term of office, selection of the chairperson, organizational operations, appeal procedures, resolutions, and other related matters concerning the members of the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee. In this regard, what standards and methods should be used to select members of the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee? How can the diversity of opinions in the appeal deliberation process be ensured?

To date, only a few individual candidates have responded to our questions. The two main competing factions—the Taiwan Lawyers Team and the National Lawyers Team—have consistently failed to respond. Perhaps amidst a fiercely contested election, touching upon sensitive public issues and taking a stance on controversial matters—such as supporting the strengthening of lawyer self-regulation and disciplinary systems—might be unfavorable to one's electoral prospects. However, how can we expect campaign teams that only care about pandering to lawyer voters and are too timid to speak out for the public interest to shoulder the public-interest mission entrusted by Article 1 of the Attorney Regulation Act after being elected?

This phenomenon also highlights serious flaws in the election administration planning of the current National Bar Association (ROC), resulting in an unfocused election and corrupted electoral integrity. The various competing factions in this election have begun organizing and mobilizing since early this year, investing massive manpower and financial resources in campaigning and canvassing. Yet, the ROC, which is responsible for planning the election administration, only held a single policy presentation for chairperson and vice-chairperson candidates on July 12, which was only viewable via online livestreaming without audience attendance, and lacked any cross-examination among candidates or invitations for public-interest representatives to pose questions. Such an outdated and obsolete policy presentation resulted in candidates merely reading from prepared scripts, precluding in-depth policy debates.

Aside from the chairperson and vice-chairpersons, this election also needs to elect 26 directors, 11 supervisors, and 78 member representatives, attracting many idealistic young and mid-career attorneys to run. However, the ROC begrudged even a single policy presentation for them, directly stripping away their opportunities for policy debate. The ROC failed to plan a sufficient number and caliber of policy debate events to meet the candidates' needs for publicity and expression. Not only did this miss an opportunity to convey a positive image of lawyers to society, but it also forced candidates to canvas solely through private dinners and visits, reducing what should have been a fair and open election into a scramble for fame and fortune driven by self-interest and indifference to others.

Our Foundation hereby calls upon the Taiwan Lawyers Team and the National Lawyers Team to immediately put forward policy proposals on public issues such as judicial reform, social participation, and lawyer self-regulation, thereby demonstrating the public-interest nature of lawyers to society. This will sweep away the negative perception of interest-group infighting, build a positive industry image for lawyers, and win society's respect for the legal profession.

Attendees

Lin Yung-sung / Chairperson, Judicial Reform Foundation
Chiang Jung-hsiang / Standing Executive Director, Judicial Reform Foundation

Contact

Hsiao I-min / Office Director, Judicial Reform Foundation