In Malta there is no limit to the number of warrants that you can have: you can be a lawyer and an accountant, you can be a psychologist and an accountant, you can be an architect and a lawyer. In other words, one can wear different hats in Malta so that confusion reigns and the poor client is kept in the dark as to whether he is divulging his secrets to his accountant, or to the accountant as his lawyer, or to the architect qua architect or to the architect qua lawyer.
In Malta warrants are signed by the President of Malta and recommended by the top person in that profession. In the case of lawyers for example, they are recommended by the Chief Justice. However in Malta we have no law which regulates the number of warrants that you can have. So far it is only in the case of notaries that lawyers are bound to relinquish their warrant to get that of notary public. But again, there is nothing in the notaries’ law which says that notaries cannot have other warrants.
In other words there is confusion galore. This confusion was acknowledged lately by the Attorney General, whose advice I am told was that there is nothing in the law prohibiting anyone from getting a warrant of a lawyer and any other warrant. Needless to say, this has caused quite a stir in the legal profession as this lacuna in the law, which was always there, was treated with responsibility and it became an established practice to renounce one warrant to get another.
But in this day and age where the law of jungle reigns supreme, and where everybody is hungry for money, this customary procedure has been given the thumbs down and nowadays we are faced with a situation where one can get as many warrants as they wish: in other words he can be a master of many professions.
The President of Malta has no say in the matter, as he signs the warrants that he is given to sign and it is not his duty to check whether his signature is going to create confusion or not. It is the responsibility of the learned who recommend the warrants to ensure that this confusion does not take place. But the learned are there to follow the law even if the law is an ass.
What is worrying is that the client is the one who bears the brunt: the client is now in a situation wherein he does not know whether the secrets he tells his lawyer are being received by his lawyer in his capacity as a lawyer; or as an accountant, for example. This distinction is very important because it is here that professional secrecy is at stake.
This is because lawyers are bound not to divulge what their clients say and no court can order them to reveal what they have been told by their clients. But it is not the same with the other professions. The other professions can be ordered by the court to state what they have been told by their clients. So where do we cross the line? How is the court to know that that thing was stated to the professional as an accountant or an auditor or qua lawyer. You will understand me now when I tell you that confusion reigns galore in these warrants.
Not only that, but on paper every warrant binds you to a code of ethics. The code of ethics of one profession can be different from the other. This means that in the case of conflict nobody knows by which conduct you are to adhere to because our law says nothing in this regard and it allows you to apply for an unlimited number of warrants.
We are touching upon this confusion every day and those entrusted with the responsibility to ensure that the code of ethics of a profession are adhered to, are in a state of confusion themselves as they can’t make heads or tails of the situation. Notaries are not allowed to give legal advice at law, but they do so and they flagrantly go on the media to give legal advice (RTK please note); lawyers whose warrants have been revoked or suspended continue to act as lawyers.
So it is not surprising that once there is little if at all any deterrent, confusion and abuses reign supreme. I have always been one for whoever opts to publish the names of the professionals whose warrant has been withdrawn or revoked. So far only a publication in the Government Gazette is necessary but you and I know how many of us read the Government Gazette. I feel that the public has the right to know who has a warrant to work and who has not.
The situation calls for an immediate reaction to all this chaos and this can only be meted by regulating the situation. I hope that the government does not drag its feet in the matter and the sooner the law is passed to clear up the situation, the better. Otherwise the people are going to continue to take advantage of the situation, and rightly so once the law permits them to do that, and continue to apply for all the warrants permissible at all.
However I am not surprised at all, as this brings me to the other subject of court experts: there is no law as to what makes you a court expert. In the present system it is your affiliation to the magistrate on duty concerned that makes you a court expert and nothing else. In the past there was an attempt to regularise the situation and even the public was invited to apply to be a court expert in their area of expertise, but the matter stopped there. It is a great pity because in most cases, the fate of any person depends on the report that these experts make to the court.
I had no time to research what other countries do in the European Union but I know that in Malta we have an office that deals in the mutual recognition of qualifications. I am sure that there is no law from Brussels regarding the number of warrants the State gives to the same person, and that this matter is regulated by each member state. But I am sure that there is such confusion in the other member states as there is in Malta.
Now that the professionals have discovered this loophole in the law, the situation at present is such that whoever relinquished his previous warrant to get the other warrant is now hastily applying for the one they gave up. So that now the situation is more confusing than ever: there is a lot of bickering between colleagues of the same profession, there is a lot of animosity, and there is ultimately no respect for the profession and for the client.
The sooner Parliament regulates this situation the better!
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
Artists, art critics and friends unanimously gather to remember the impact and value of Ebba von Fersen Balzan’s work and her strong connection with the Maltese islands
In other words, one can wear different hats in Malta so that confusion reigns and the poor client is kept in the dark as to whether he is divulging his secrets to his accountant, or to the accountant as his lawyer, or to the architect qua architect or to the architect qua lawyer.
