Continuing Tensions Over Legal Profession Regulation in Morocco
In Morocco, the ongoing tug-of-war between lawyers and the government has escalated into one of the most prolonged crises witnessed in the legal profession in recent years, primarily revolving around Law No. 66.23, which pertains to the regulation of the legal profession. Following several months of protests and work stoppages, the law came into effect on August 20. However, recent legislative developments have failed to quell the unrest, prompting the Moroccan Bar Association to remain steadfast in its calls for a review or repeal of the law. This situation highlights a significant rift between the legal community and governmental authorities.
In the latest developments, the Bar Association's council conducted an extensive meeting in Rabat last week, lasting nearly ten hours, during which they decisively opted to continue their suspension of professional services. This meeting took place under particularly sensitive circumstances, just days after the new law was enacted. Additionally, the Constitutional Court has yet to address the law's compatibility with the constitution due to procedural issues related to the referral of the case.
The crisis has now transcended the discussion of a proposed law and has become a confrontation with an already enacted statute, which the professional bodies refuse to accept as the conclusion of their discussions. Following the council meeting, the office of the association convened to deliberate on the next steps, extending their discussions into the early hours of Friday, August 28. As a result, the association reaffirmed its decision to maintain the suspension of professional services, signaling the continuation of protests that commenced after the law was voted on by the Council of Advisors on June 23.
Lawyers' Rejection of Recent Developments
The discourse surrounding the law began with its introduction by the Ministry of Justice in late 2023 and early 2024, culminating in a lengthy process of dialogue and protests before its approval and official publication on August 20. Since the onset of this crisis, lawyer representatives have voiced their objections to several provisions of the amendment and have criticized the manner in which the law was drafted and adopted. The Bar Association has expressed dissatisfaction over what it perceives as insufficient consultation with legal professionals, arguing that many new provisions undermine the independence of the profession and its governing bodies.
However, the protests that continued post-enactment reflect a transition into a new phase of confrontation, wherein lawyers are no longer merely attempting to influence pending legislation but are now responding to a legal text that has become part of the official legal framework. The law introduced several provisions that lawyers have vehemently opposed, including new conditions and criteria for practicing law, allowing foreign lawyers to practice, and prohibiting demonstrations within courts during sessions. Additionally, the new law stipulates that candidates for the profession must be under 40 years of age, aiming to regulate the influx of new practitioners while ensuring they receive the necessary training and attract top-tier talent.
Moreover, while the previous law required a bachelor's degree in law, passing a qualifying examination, and three years of training, the new law mandates a master's degree in law for qualifying examinations, followed by one year of theoretical training at a training institute and two years of supervised training under relevant bar associations. After completing their training, trainee lawyers must pass an examination to obtain a certificate of competence to practice law. Despite these changes, lawyers have expressed their rejection of numerous provisions which they believe undermine the independence of the legal profession and threaten the gains achieved over the years.
The implementation of Law No. 66.23 was expected to formally conclude the legislative process that had spanned months of debate and controversy. However, the Bar Association opted to disregard this notion, choosing instead to continue their suspension of professional services and demanding a reevaluation of the law. This situation illustrates a significant complexity in the crisis, as the government views the law as a finalized legislative product, while the leadership of the Bar Association maintains that its enactment does not preclude objections to its provisions.
On August 10, the Constitutional Court issued a ruling concerning the referral related to the law's constitutional compliance but did not engage in a substantive discussion of the law's content, nor did it issue a judgment affirming or denying its constitutionality. Instead, it declared that it could not rule on the referral in its current state due to procedural errors concerning the documentation submitted. This ruling added another layer of complexity to the ongoing dispute, as neither side has received a judicial resolution regarding the core issues at stake.
In light of these developments, the Bar Association views the situation as part of a broader struggle regarding the law and its institutional trajectory. Initially focused on the law's content and the consultation process with professionals, the constitutional institution and the referral issue have now become central to the discussion. This shift is significant, as the dispute is no longer confined to a professional association and the government; it also involves the operation of legislative and oversight institutions concerning the law.
The Bar Association’s decision to continue the strike cannot be separated from its perception that the law's implementation has not closed all avenues for dissent. They believe the conflict remains unresolved, and they are prepared to continue applying pressure, whether through professional protest or by seeking to initiate a new institutional dialogue.
Following the publication of the law in the official gazette, Justice Minister Abdellatif Wahbi expressed his full openness to dialogue with lawyers in the upcoming period, aiming to find solutions to unresolved issues. However, Wahbi had previously dismissed the possibility of the strike continuing, asserting, "I do not believe the strike will persist because lawyers are men of law and understand the implications of the law's publication and that His Majesty the King has ordered its implementation." He also suggested that the ongoing debate surrounding the law is now a matter of the past, expressing optimism for reaching a resolution soon.
As reported by france24.com.
