TOP LEGAL EXECUTIVES
Lawyering a ‘Sensitive Gauge of the Economy’ János Bánáti, president of the Hungarian Bar Association (MÜK) reflects on how the pandemic has affected the profession, the organization’s priorities for this year, whether legal education is up to scratch, and addresses the question of its independence. By Zsófia Végh BBJ: How hard has the legal profession been hit by the coronavirus? János Bánáti: At the beginning of the outbreak when all economic activities stalled, including real estate deals, and trials were suspended, we feared that it might bring the entire profession to its knees. A year into the pandemic, I am glad to say that it did not turn out that badly. Lawyering is a very sensitive gauge of the economy: it immediately reflects its changes. The Hungarian economy did not collapse, limitations such as the court "holiday" were eventually lifted, real estate deals returned, new companies are still founded. There is recession, but nowhere near as severe as we envisioned a year ago. On a positive note, the number of lawyers did not decrease. Some may have left the profession or decided to retire, but the growing trend we have seen for several years did not stop. The pandemic has increased the role and share of IT and digitization and, where possible, it accelerated the transition to digital tools. However, there are fields where an in-person appearance is essential; in criminal proceedings, for example. Although the court made some allowances to reduce the risk from the epidemic, some personal contact was necessary regardless. In fact, a criminal case or trial is an area where I am quite skeptical about the use of digital tools in the future as well, as a lot can be deduced from non-verbal cues, facial expressions, tone, etc. that is lost online. BBJ: What are the priorities for the Hungarian Bar Association for this year? JB: One priority is the economic situation of lawyers. Here MÜK has a delicate role in legislation: while it
is supposed to put lawyers’ interest to the forefront, it needs to do so in a way that it does not limit or harm the interests of society. One example would be mandatory representation, which could be expanded, but at the same time it cannot be made universal, as it would put too much of a burden on people. We seem to have found the balance where, in civil cases, the ratio of mandatory representation has increased without increasing the burdens on individuals. We also represent our members – just like any other chamber – when there are changes in taxation, such as KATA, or fees, etc. The coronavirus has also heavily impacted mandatory advanced training. A new concept introduced in 2018, this training was created to ensure that lawyers keep up with the fast pace of legislative changes. It was scheduled to start last January, and a significant part of it would have been in person. With the pandemic, it had to be moved online. Also, most community-building events, including Lawyer’s Day and Ball, had to be cancelled. Hopefully, we will be able to celebrate it again this year. BBJ: Is graduate education also up to date with the law of the 21st century? JB: Twelve years ago, in a college journal of ELTE University, I criticized higher education overall. I found it too theoretical and that it put a disproportionate emphasis on lexical knowledge while disregarding the practical aspects of the profession. Teaching focused on finding one solution to a problem, which is the judge’s job, not a lawyer’s. They, instead, should be trained to be able to identify a problem, to argue from more than one angle. As a lawyer involved in different aspects of training in
18
