Verdict
After careful consideration, this court has reached a verdict. This has been an interesting court case and I'm sorry for the delays on my side. I wanted to expedite the process as much as I could but this case went on longer than I would have preferred given the serious need for clarity on the issue of law. I would urge all parties both involved and not involved to read The Court's Opinion before reading The Verdict.
Plaintiff's Arguments:
1. There are no grounds under the legal board's responsibilities for the board to mandate registration.
2. The organisation can, however, limit the recruitment across the board to the legal profession. This is an exclusive power that the organisation is granted and can only be achieved by shutting the exams, at the RBAs discretion (Legal Board Act, 2020, Section 8)
3. that the board be 'composed of all lawyers, which include Solicitors, Barristers, and Attorneys.' Allowing registration implies that there is a degree of discretion in the process, which was not established under the powers or responsibilities of the board.
Defendant's Arguments:
1. As written in section 3 of the legal Board Act, one of the duties of the RBA is to discuss and debate on legal policy. We did this and then changed our legal policy to require registration with the RBA. Furthermore, the Act does not even explicitly limit our duties to those written in the Act.
2. Section 4 of the Legal Board Act explicitly grants the RBA the ability to revoke a lawyer's ability to file cases for clients, which is referred to as a "practicing license" by the RBA and its bylaws. Section 4 does not put any limitations on the RBA's ability to revoke practicing licenses, other than that the RBA Council must vote to revoke the license. The Council did (unanimously) vote to temporarily revoke the licenses of non-registered lawyers until they register, which is fully legal under Section 4
3. Section 8 of the Legal Board Act states that the RBA may moderate recruitment in the legal profession at the RBA's discretion. Section 8, Subsection 2 also says that the RBA may create additional requirements for the legal exams. This new rule is doing that by requiring that if someone passes a legal exam to become a lawyer, they then need to register their new lawyer job with the RBA by presenting proof of passing the legal exam to the RBA.
The Court's Opinion:
This Court has been mulling over back and forth on whom the verdict should go to. Mostly because it understands the frustration that the plaintiff feels while also understanding that such a verdict heavily impacts the RBA functioning powers. I have been reading into AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association [Case No. 07-2021-06] as a guide to part of my decision-making process. The verdict of that case is relatively new and affects the RBA's powers on disbarment. There is an important part of the opinion that I will paste here.
1. The Court believes that the Redmont Bar Association acted outside of their legal right to revoke somebody's legal license and had illegally revoked their license, the fact that somebody's client does not agree with how they handled something does not mean they didn't provide an effective service, however with the added note that now it would be legal to revoke t due to an amendment to the Legal Board Act passed by congress, however, due to the revocation of the Plaintiff's license and the offense listed happening before the passage of the amendment, it does not apply in this circumstance.
I post this for a very specific reason.
When this decision came down, Judge Bubbarc, believed that in order for the RBA to disbar someone, it must fall into one of the four categories outlined by the Legal Boards Act section 4. The argument was that the plaintiff was illegally disbarred, the defendant claimed that their disbarment fell under category 3 of the Legal Boards Act section 4. When the Judge determined that the disbarment did not fall under category 3, then it did not fit any legal reason for disbarment and was thus declared illegal. Going against this ruling would be going against stare decisis. It can therefore be concluded that the Legal Boards Act Section 4 is an exhaustive list and disbarment can only happen for the following reasons:
(1) Anyone may be subject to their ability to file a lawsuit for someone else being revoked should they breach the following;
(2) Lawyers must respect attorney-client privilege and cannot reveal information told in private by their client.
(a) Lawyers cannot be held accountable for conspiracy if practising the use of attorney-client privilege; with the exception of being involved in the conspiracy.
(b) Lawyers may break attorney-client privilege should the individual be involved in corruption or pose an imminent threat to the safety of others.
(3) Lawyers must ensure they are providing effective counsel in representing their clients in court.
(4) Lawyers must ensure they are abiding by any other procedure or terms set out by the courts.
The defendant is enacting this ban through an extensive and all-encompassing disbarment: "The Council did (unanimously) vote to temporarily revoke the licenses of non-registered lawyers until they register, which is fully legal under Section 4". This is, unfortunately, illegal as it does not fit into any of the above reasons for disbarment. It is this court's opinion that any preemptive disbarment is illegal. Additionally, any disbarment process should only include one person per vote unless the circumstances that rise to disbarment include two lawyers.
However, writing such a verdict standalone would cripple this policy and severely hurt the RBA's ability to maintain and regulate the legal profession. This Court does not believe that having lawyers join the RBA discord is in any way discriminatory or illegal. In fact, as pointed out by the plaintiff, the RBA is supposed to be "a board composed of all lawyers, which include Solicitors, Barristers, and Attorneys". How is the RBA supposed to include all lawyers if lawyers refuse to join the discord server of the organization? This is where this court believes that the Legal Boards Act Section 8 comes into play:
8 - Limiting recruitment
(1) Recruitment within the legal profession is to be moderated by the DCBA (RBA) Council at their discretion.
(2) Additional requirements to take the Legal exams may be required by the DCBA (RBA), such as but not limited to, an application.
There are two things that immediately stick out to me. The first is that the RBA is allowed to moderate the legal profession "at their discretion". So the argument that the RBA can only limit recruitment into the legal field by closing the exams is incorrect. The second is that the RBA is allowed to create additional requirements to enter the legal field. It can therefore be concluded that recruitment of the legal profession can be moderated by the RBA through the use of additional requirements not limited to an application. Such as potentially having a requirement to join the RBA discord prior to being allowed to take the legal exam.
Thus we arrive at the crux of the case. Ultimately this is a compromise. This court does see that the current methods that the RBA is employing to force lawyers to join their discord server to be illegal. However, it also understands the purpose of trying to make everyone join, and has thus found a legal compromise to the problem.
The Verdict:
This Court rules in favor of the plaintiff. The Court holds the view that disbarment can only be done through the terms listed in section 5 of the Legal Boards Act and that the list is exhaustive. The RBA must have a vote for each individual it wants to disbar, with the exception being if there are multiple lawyers implicated in a single situation. The RBA also cannot pre-emptively disbar people who have not joined the profession yet.
However, the Court believes that recruitment of the legal profession can be moderated by the RBA through the use of additional requirements not limited to an application because of the Legal Boards Act Section 8. It also holds the view that having lawyers join the discord server, which is the primary and only place where the RBA does most of the operations. Since the RBA is a board composed of all lawyers, which include Solicitors, Barristers, and Attorneys, it should therefore be concluded that all lawyers should be on the RBA discord server. Having a fair process that would have people equally get on the RBA discord server does not violate the Right XIII. The contrapositive of this logical statement is that if one cannot be on the RBA discord server then one cannot be a lawyer. Since all lawyers should be on the RBA discord server. This is because the RBA is a board composed of all lawyers and the RBA primarily and only operates within the RBA discord.
This court hereby orders the following:
1. The RBA immediately ends its policy of disbarring all lawyers unless they join the discord server.
2. The RBA cannot preemptively disbar people who have not joined the profession yet.
3. The RBA must from now on vote on each individual it wishes to disbar unless the lawyers were involved in the same situation.
4. The RBA can set up a discord requirement for all people who wish to take any of the legal exams and prevent people from taking the test until they've joined the RBA discord.
Thank you for your patience with the Court in this matter. If Defendant wishes to appeal this decision they may. I hope that I have found the best compromise for this situation.
This court is now adjourned.