5 minute read
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
different roles, I am happy to say that now the education has become much more practice oriented and solution focused. Currently, the number of young graduates in the bar who are on vocational training is around 3,000 and their approach reflects this improvement significantly.
BBJ: A few years ago, you said that this profession is just as diverse as Hungarian society and, as such, it is also independent. Is it still so, considering that the independence of certain elements of Hungarian legislation has been questioned in the past couple of years?
JB: I firmly believe that this has not changed. And when I say this, I am speaking not only on behalf of the majority of the bar, but also how society sees it. The sovereignty of both the bar’s self-governance and the legal profession has remained intact. The part of the law on legal aid that says the client’s interest is given overall priority and lawyers have to represent that, the most important part of our independence, is unquestionable. So, whenever a lawyer engages in a proceeding where they represent a private entity against the state, be it a tax trial (where they often stand against the state’s interest) or at a criminal proceeding versus the state, the interests of the client comes first. No one pressures lawyers to keep the state’s interest in mind. Should it happen, as it did a year ago during the so-called Prison Business cases, the bar immediately acts and defends the sovereignty of its member.
Another element to this independence is the selection of the bar’s officials and leaders; here there has never been any interference from the state or any other party. The disciplinary committee within the bar is a two-level body made up exclusively of lawyers, also guaranteeing independence. Overall, our activities are defined by the law, but the content (how and with whom we “fill” it) is entirely down to us. The assembly of envoys devises regulations that all 12,000 lawyers must keep. This, in part, has to do with the traditions of this profession and also with the fact that law is a delicate area where any deviation can have immediate consequences. Some also say that it helps that there several lawyers in Parliament. I cannot assess how much lobbying influence they may have, but it is also true that in the past 30 years, the majority of justice ministers had previously been lawyers who probably have this independence in mind as well.
János Bánáti
