A retrograde and shortsighted step

Dec 04, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

…Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News- The Guyana Bar Association’s (GBA) opposition to amending the Legal Practitioners Act to allow foreign legal practitioners, including those from non-signatory countries, to practice in Guyana raises profound questions.

Such an objection is not only a restraint on the trade in services but also a protectionist measure that hinders Guyana’s potential to benefit from the globalisation of legal services. The GBA’s opposition is retrograde particularly given Guyana’s historical openness to globalisation in other sectors and the significant presence of U.S. and other foreign interests in the country. It is also a short-sighted and counterproductive stance that runs contrary to global trends, international legal principles and Guyana’s own economic interests.

Supporting restraints on foreign legal practitioners from practising in Guyana represents an unnecessary restraint on individuals’ right to ply their trade. By limiting practice to nationals of signatory countries, the GBA implicitly enforces a protectionist regime that stifles competition and innovation within the legal profession. Guyana, like other modern economies, benefits from the skills and expertise of professionals who bring diverse legal traditions and practices. Denying access to American attorneys, for instance, prevents Guyana from harnessing the substantial expertise present in the United States. In turn, this weakens the overall quality of legal advocacy and jurisprudence within Guyana.

Such restrictions contradict the principles of international labour mobility promoted by treaties like the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which underscores the importance of liberalizing professional services, including legal services. The GBA’s stance appears to sideline these broader international norms, favouring a narrow interpretation of local legal practice at the expense of global cooperation and benefit.

Protectionist policies, while sometimes justifiable in fledgling industries, are counterproductive in mature professions like law. The GBA’s opposition to foreign practitioners effectively shields local attorneys from competition rather than incentivizing them to improve their practices and adapt to global standards. Such policies reduce the quality of legal representation available, and limit clients’ ability to choose legal representation best suited to their needs.

Allowing foreign practitioners into Guyana can significantly bolster the country’s legal capacity, particularly in specialized fields such as oil and gas law, intellectual property, and international arbitration. Given the burgeoning oil and gas industry in Guyana, the presence of experienced American lawyers could provide local attorneys with invaluable mentorship and collaboration opportunities. This would not only improve the competence of the legal fraternity but also ensure that Guyanese interests are better represented in international transactions and disputes.

Restricting foreign practitioners limits the pool of available legal talent, which can adversely affect access to justice. Clients seeking specialized legal expertise may find themselves underserved due to the limited capabilities of the local bar. For instance, complex cases involving cross-border transactions or international arbitration may require expertise that is not readily available within Guyana. Allowing foreign practitioners to operate can help bridge these gaps, ensuring that all clients—local and foreign—receive the best possible representation.

 

Ironically, Guyanese professionals, including lawyers, have long benefited from the openness of foreign jurisdictions. For Guyana to now impose restrictions on foreign attorneys’ reek of hypocrisy and undermines the spirit of reciprocity that governs international professional relations. The United States is among Guyana’s largest investors, particularly in the energy sector. Allowing American attorneys to practice locally would send a strong signal of Guyana’s commitment to accommodating and facilitating foreign investment. Legal practitioners from investing countries often serve as critical intermediaries, bridging the gap between local regulations and international business standards. Excluding them risks alienating investors who may view such restrictions as a broader hostility toward foreign participation.

Under principles enshrined in international law, particularly those articulated by the World Trade Organization (WTO), countries are encouraged to minimize barriers to the free flow of services. Legal services fall under the purview of this framework, and imposing restrictions based on nationality or treaty signatory status is inconsistent with these principles.

Rather than opposing foreign participation, the GBA should focus on modernizing its regulatory framework to ensure that foreign practitioners meet the requisite standards of competency and ethical practice. For example, introducing a qualifying examination for foreign attorneys or requiring them to undergo training in Guyanese law would balance the need for quality control with the benefits of liberalisation.

Rather than clinging to protectionist measures, the GBA should embrace a forward-looking vision that prioritizes the liberalization of legal services, aligns with international norms, and fosters a more dynamic and globally competitive legal profession. Only by doing so can Guyana truly position itself as a modern, open, and progressive nation in an interconnected world.

The Attorney General must be commended for consulting with the Guyana Bar Association (GBA). Such engagement reflects respect for the views of key stakeholders in the legal profession. However, the GBA’s opposition underscores deep-seated insecurities about competition rather than genuine concerns about the quality or integrity of legal practice. While their apprehensions warrant acknowledgment, the Attorney General is neither bound to comply with nor agree with their advice, particularly when it contradicts the broader national interest. The time has come for him to act decisively and reject their restrictive stance, paving the way for the necessary amendments to liberalize Guyana’s legal services.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) 

(A retrograde and shortsighted step)

---

• General Agreement on Trade in Services, globalisation of legal services, Legal Practitioners Act, Peeping Tom

---