A.J. Nicholson

The fulfilment of the aims of a democratic society requires that the legal profession perform its true role, and be seen as part of the bastion between the state and the citizen.

In recent times, there has been both covert and open criticism of the membership of the profession - the profession to which I belong. Because of certain encouraging statements of intent coming from the new president, attorney-at-law Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, in a published interview, I decided to dedicate this column as an open letter to her.

Dear Counsel:

Congratulations from the heart! I am satisfied that you will make a difference by the way your presidency comes to be conducted.

I am also satisfied that you bring to your journey wide and uncommon trails of experience; your undoubted acumen; and a good-naturedness that shines through to say: "I want to help".

I was moved to write to you, openly, because of the stated path you intend to take along your journey.

As you are reported to have said in a recently published interview, you plan to see that the local Bar Association provides a more supportive role in the development and encouragement of both seasoned and upcoming attorneys.

"What I have found," you declare, "is that in other countries, the Bar associations play a more supportive role in helping lawyers to raise their standards of performance. I am aware that in other countries the Bar council or association will assist lawyers in meeting certain statutory requirements; fulfilling their obligations to their clients; going in and assisting them; and that is what I want to aim at."

Those sentiments, of course, clearly constitute the core functions of a professional body such as the Bar Association.

It is acknowledged that a professional body will find other issues that attract and require its attention from time to time. Such a body, however, should not allow itself to come to be defined by its approach to such collateral functions.

For example, the Jamaican Bar Association is not a lobby group; nor should it come to be defined as such.

And worse! Such a professional body certainly cannot afford to allow itself to be seen as an appendage, occupying a hidden place among an amorphous grouping, in such a manner as not to be recognisable as the venerable and respected institution which, in reality, it is. Indeed, it is obliged to project itself, always, to be seen in that light in its internal workings and its public profile.

Core functions

Bernard Coard, one of the 'Grenada 17' (left) and Jacqueline Samuels-Brown (right).

As you suggest, our profession must ask itself whether, and to what extent, the Jamaican Bar Association has strayed from its core functions of playing a supportive role in the development of lawyers and helping them to raise their standards of performance.

Do clients, at home and in the diaspora, receive the kind of service that leads them to feel satisfied that their best interests are being constantly addressed? Are we satisfied that our efforts to uphold the traditions of the profession and to be guided by its canons have been good enough?

Such questions, and several others, perhaps, are to be contemplated, not for the purpose of directing any ad hominem criticism, or to dwell on any transgression. They are to be faced for the primary reason that, with an inclination to internalise from time to time, the journey that the association is about to take will not present the kind of pitfalls that may serve to hinder the process of carrying out its core functions.

Experience and good sense have pushed you in a direction of inclusiveness: to move along your journey in collaboration with the other law associations across Jamaica.

For, these stakeholder institutions are not to be seen as rivals or humbugs. They will make your journey less stressful and more fulfilling by being encouraged to share your vision of helping to raise the standards, thereby giving your initiatives a wider reach.

They are also to be encouraged to the view that seeing to the interest of their clients must be the real focus of the associations; that they are not mandated to do the bidding or to pursue the aims and objectives of other entities, regardless of the power that any such entity might wield; or just simply to be part of the in crowd.

The opportunity that came your way, and early in your career at the Bar, when you were called upon to be part of the defence team in the Grenada 17 - the Maurice Bishop murder case - will have helped to prepare you to be able to realise the vision that you bring to this journey.

It was a defining experience for every one of us, as members of that team. The real lesson of that minefield of an exercise came in the form of learning to focus on the task at hand.

The primary function was to provide solid and meaningful representation for persons charged with an offence, the kind of which was unknown in the Commonwealth Caribbean: the killing of a head of government.

There were, however, so very many 'in-your-face' distractions which presented a mountain of a challenge not to be swept up and away from the core function of the team in Grenada.

Those distractions took several forms in the pressure-cooker situation within which the preparation and the airing of the issues in court took place.

Violent death

Maurice Bishop - former Prime Minister of Grenada

First, there was the reality of the violent death of a beloved prime minister and several others in a small island state.

Then, the all-pervasive influence and military presence of a superpower in that small island state, with its citizens in a state of bewilderment.

The challenges encountered to gain access to, and receive instructions from, persons incarcerated in maximum security confinement, guarded by correctional officers who were themselves prisoners of their own bewilderment.

And who were these persons in this maximum security confinement? They were several men and a woman who, but yesterday, had been in charge of the government of the country.

How were they to repose confidence in these lawyers from afar, and whose background and philosophy of life they could hardly have known? And how were the attorneys to place much reliance on the early 'instructions' that they would have received?

In that situation of physical and psychological pressure, the families of the erstwhile government leaders had to walk a tightrope of fear and suspicion.

And, above all, how were these foreign lawyers, performing a most unpopular function, to be regarded by a troubled population in such a charged atmosphere?

Those impediments, or any of them, could have served to attract sympathy, even if not forgiveness, if they proved to be overwhelming. The team was made of sterner stuff and we had the leadership of a legal giant who, though always aware of the piercing avenues of potential distraction, inspired us to maintain a focus on the task, looking always through his jurisprudential spyglass.

Positive and negative

There were positive and negative outcomes. The Grenada 17 - to a man and woman - have openly expressed the sentiment that the intervention of the team played no small part in their lives being spared. And, to their credit, every member of the Grenada 17 has excelled in some discipline or set of studies during their incarceration. These have proved to be clear positives.

The negative tugs at the heart-strings of Caribbean legal history: a written judgment, certainly of the appeal hearing at the Richmond Hill court, if it exists, has not seen the light of day. How tragic!

So you, the youngest member of that team, are now called upon to keep a focus on your own vision through your own spyglass.

Your interview records your lament of the challenges to the efficiency of our justice system in Jamaica. Of course, an efficient system gives rise to more efficient and performance-oriented practitioners: any extended lament on those acknowledged challenges is likely to pull your energies away from the main focus.

That was the sentiment that spurred the breakthrough to providing a foundational source for reform, in the work of the Jamaican Justice System Reform Task Force. That, I am sure, was the sentiment that spurred your participation in the exercise, representing the Advocates Association of Jamaica.

The June 2007 final report asserts that "Realising the Task Force's vision for the Jamaican justice system in 2017 requires transformation at the level of attitudes, behaviours, processes, systems and practices."

There is the requirement, therefore, that leadership be put in place at several levels to guide the process through the 10-year transformation projected by the task force. One year has already slipped by.

Firm footing

You have now been called on to place that process on firm footing for the Bar Association to accept those areas that must be specifically addressed by its members.

By establishing your main focus and settling on the core vision that you have articulated, you have taken to heart the exhortation of the celebrated American jurist, Mr Justice Cardozo: "The methods we employ in the administration of our justice system have aptly been described as the means by which our civilisation will ultimately come to be judged."

Clearly, then, I am sanguine about the eventual success of your mission as president of the Jamaican Bar Association.

Fraternally yours,

A.J. Nicholson