Bewigged, bothered and bewildered

BY Gordon Robinson

So, lawyers are finally talking about removing wigs from judges. As usual, this is happening because it's already been done in England. Although it's rumoured that we've been independent for almost 50 years, the legal profession still doesn't dare to take a single innovative step unless it's first taken in England. In 2002, we blithely copied the new English Civil Procedure Rules (most of them) without taking the time required to understand what they meant and why England was forced to draft them in a particular way.

Accordingly, we accidentally acquired a perfect platform for developing our own jurisprudence insofar as civil procedure was concerned. Still, we turn to English judicial decision after English judicial decision in order to 'interpret' our rules 'correctly'.

In 2004, I wrote an article which was published in the Bar Association's periodical (JAMBAR) called 'It's New For Goodness Sake', in which I tried manfully to explain the genesis and meaning of the new rules, and especially the purpose of the appa-rently introductory words: "This is a new procedural code." However, I failed to use a single 'heretofore' or 'whereas' and limited showing off my Latin skills, so few lawyers grasped my meaning.

Slaves to tradition

Young lawyers, fresh out of our Caribbean law school (in name only), still regard a textbook by an English barrister named Sime ('Same Old' to me) as a civil-procedure bible and regularly rely on his pearls of wisdom sometimes without double-checking whether we have a similar context to the similar rule upon which he expounds. So, how on earth would you expect lawyers, most of whom are nothing more than trained bulemists (taught to read a British text; absorb it; and regurgitate it verbatim on an end-of-year exam), to try to give different meanings to Jamaican provisions identical to their English counterparts because of different environmental situations? Faget it!

So, British judges are giving up their wigs. Obviously, we must now follow suit. Why haven't we long ago realised that we're not British and are in fact living in temperate climes? Why didn't we discard wig AND gown in 1962? Instead, after more than 20 years of 'Independence', we added the very British bib and tucker as mandatory garb for all Jamaican lawyers appearing as counsel in court. For Pete's sake! In the midst of a blazing hot summer, our lawyers must put on hot, flowing black gowns and tight, fake collars then spend the day fanning themselves in courtrooms sometimes resembling saunas in order that we may look more British. To this day, after 50 years of 'Independence', this is where we find ourselves.

Shame on the legal profession! We should've abandoned the gown and wig decades ago. The problem, of course (as it was expressed by the instigators of the mandatory 'bib and tucker'), is that lawyers are special. Legends in their own minds. They must be seen as better than the average bear. It would be soul-destroying to our olde England-trained lawyers if we appeared just like common tradesmen in a business suit. After all, we're lawyers. Surely, we're better than tradesmen?

We're all equals

Nonsense! Lawyers, like everybody in society, are simply citizens trained to make a certain contribution to nation building in a certain way. In that regard, we're no different (not better, not worse) than architects, doctors, mechanics, engineers, landscapers, politicians, painters, helpers, housewives ('domestic goddesses') or postmen. Our role is to solve other citizens' legal problems. In carrying out our function, we must discard the British aristocratic approach and to talk to people in language they can understand.

No client gives a fig how much Latin you know or whether you can spot the fine distinction between the English cases of Horseradish v Cowdung and Ladies Temperance Society v Girls from Norfolk. Clients don't care that you can quote verbatim from wordy judgments of Lord Wets-His-Pants of Spell y Guess or Justice Ancient Al(zheimer's). They want to know, in less than 100 words, how you're going to solve their problem. And, most important, how much it will cost.

So, here's a revolutionary idea for the 50th anniversary celebrations. How about lawyers start speaking English to their clients instead of legalese? How about we discard all wigs, gowns, bibs and tuckers and try to look like Jamaicans who can't afford to contribute to the deterioration of an already vulnerable environment with 24/7 air-conditioning? How's about we try being us?

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.