Personally, I recommend tutelage before setting up one’s firm. I believe tutelage is a desideratum for excellent legal practice. However, I do not agree to a compulsory tutelage backed by law.
Whether a lawyer wants to undertake tutelage or start his practice should be a private matter, and the law has no business making a choice for him/her.
Extant laws, including rules of conduct, torts etc, are sufficient to safeguard whatever fear we may house for straight-out-of-law-school practice. More so, even tutelage is not automatically a guarantee of an excellent practice, and lack of it doesn’t automatically translate into bad legal practice and unprofessionalism.
I believe the current framework should be sustained while we should devote our energy on rather more salient matters such as a sustainable and effective remuneration and welfare system for lawyers.
Young lawyers are subjected to penury. Yet, we want to enslave them more for two years under the guise of pupilage.
We reject this forced labour.
While the idea of pupilage is good, it should be supported by a clear welfare and remuneration package for the pupils.
Has this ever been tested to know what truly happens? I believe the girl stated the law stricto sensu. We still had this discussion during the Iris Attorney Internship class with Sir @RidwanuLlah
That's not a misinformation. 🤔
First of all, your analogy of Car paper to Certificate of Occupancy is very wrong. They are not the same and cannot be compared. With regard to Car, you bought it and then obtained clearance from the Government. When it comes to Land, the law already vested all Lands in a State in the Governor. You leased it from the Governor for a period of time. The basic principle on lease/rent is that the property reverts to the Lessor/Landlord after the period of lease/rent no matter how long.
Secondly, you have not told us the section you relied on to claim that the land does not revert to the Government after the period of 99 years. You just issued a blanket disclaimer without proper legal analysis.
Don’t let anybody make you feel less of yourself, academic excellence will always remain a worthy pursuit.
From base eligibility for good jobs to foreign scholarship opportunities, evidence abounds everywhere.
@i_shamimiruddy I agree with you. The AG's argument, to me, is not substantial. He's and will always be the chief law officer until the constitution says otherwise. His inclusion is still reasonable unlike the proposed.