LAZ Okays parallel legal association

Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:31:49 +0000



LAW Association of Zambia (LAZ) says its members are free to join or belong to any other legal practitioners association without any restriction.

It explained that out of public interest, there was need for orderly regulation and control of the profession necessary to enforce ethical standards of the legal profession for public good.

They submitted that through a normal and harmonious function of the legal profession, there was need for coherent systems of ethical values and principles.

This is in a matter on which counsel Robson Malipenga sued the Attorney General and LAZ on arguments that Zambian lawyers can belong to other legal associations other than LAZ.

“The petitioner has no conditional right to form or belong to any association of lawyers instead of the 2nd respondent (LAZ) because public order demands that lawyers are regulated and controlled by one professional body for the maintenance of ethical standards for the public good.

“The 2nd respondent however states that the petitioner is not at all prevented from forming and joining any association of lawyers in addition to the 2nd respondent (LAZ),” they said.

LAZ stated that the compulsory membership of legal practitioners to the law association was a best and common practice in the Commonwealth and other democratic societies with England and Wales regulated by the Barristers General Council of the Bar.

LAZ has also admitted arguments by Mr Malipenga, because all legal practitioners were required to obtain practicing licences from LAZ.

It was almost mandatory that all such members also belonged to the association, as such all law students and legal academicians not yet admitted to the bar were automatically associate members of LAZ.

And the Attorney General Likando Kalaluka has confirmed contents of the Law Association of Zambia Act which contravened the Republican Constitution of Zambia.

Mr Kalaluka said they would not be in contention with most grounds raised in the petition and only affirmed that indeed only the leadership at LAZ was permitted to speak on behalf of the members.

“Suffice to add that the members of the association are free to channel their views to the leadership of the Association which will eventually consider airing those views,

“The 1st respondent (Attorney General) states that the conclusion as to whether or not the reliefs sought should be granted or denied are in the exclusive province of the Court, bearing in mind that the same are within the petitioner’s constitutional right to be determined,” he said.


Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button