Lawyers in Casablanca Take a Stand Against Proposed Legal Reforms
The Casablanca Bar Association has joined other legal bodies in a significant protest against recently adopted amendments by the Justice, Legislation, and Human Rights Committee in the House of Councillors regarding Bill No. 66.23, which governs the organization of the legal profession. In an official statement released on June 24, 2026, the Bar Association announced its decision to initiate a series of protest measures, starting with a complete suspension of all professional services beginning Wednesday, June 24, 2026, until further notice.
This collective action arises from the Bar's serious concerns over several regressive changes included in the amendments. One of the most contentious issues is the proposal to raise the minimum age for entry into the legal profession to 50 years, a stark contrast to the age requirements for other professions. The Bar has also criticized the lack of protective measures for accessing the profession and perceives a blatant infringement on its independence, particularly through the regulation of registration fees by legislative texts.
Furthermore, the Bar Association is opposing the stipulation that requires lawyers to undergo continuous training supervised by a specialized institute, arguing that this undermines the autonomy of the legal profession. The implications of the amendments on the financial independence of bar associations and their social projects are also points of contention for the organization.
Additionally, the Bar has expressed alarm over the requirement for lawyers' deposit and settlement accounts to be subjected to oversight by the Court of Auditors. They argue that this measure violates constitutional provisions as well as Law No. 62.99 regarding financial jurisdiction, which clearly delineates the entities subject to such oversight, limited to the state and public organizations.
Lastly, the Casablanca Bar Association has raised concerns that some of the amendments reflect a biased legislative favoritism. They believe these provisions, along with other previously mentioned points, contravene the Constitution, relevant international conventions, and fundamental principles that uphold the right to defense.
As reported by lesiteinfo.com.
