Reform and Red Herrings
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Saqib Nisar, is on an escalated reform mission. Among other things, he has vowed to transform the standard of legal education in the country within six weeks. To put things into perspective, that’s about as long as it takes to heal an average bone fracture.
One of the important items on the legal education reform agenda is tighter regulation of what are known as “affiliated law colleges.” It has come to light, albeit not for the first time, that many legal education institutions across the country that have supposedly been granted affiliate status either do not fulfill the criteria for affiliation or are providing substandard legal education or, typically, both. The Chief Justice believes that this breakdown in quality control of affiliated law colleges is responsible for producing the kind of lawyers who “sold paan during the day and practiced law in the evening.” Accordingly, the Chief Justice has issued an order prohibiting new affiliations and constituted a special committee to oversee “structural reforms” in legal education.
Such episodic and ad hoc oversight interventions for regulating the provision of legal education are a quick and convenient fix – they can be neatly packaged to the public as an instance of successful reform, accomplished even before one’s broken bones have fully recovered. But from the viewpoint of enduring or structural change, they entirely miss the woods for the trees.
Let me put this criticism in a few digestible numbers with a focus on Lahore and the wider Punjab region. The Lahore District Bar is the largest district-level bar in all of South Asia. While it has an estimated registered population of 18,000 – a number that is continually growing – only somewhere between 6–7,000 of its members actively practice in the courts as litigators. This current population of lawyer-advocates has something striking in common. A very large majority of them (over 90%) received their qualifying degree in law (LL.B) as well as their highest degree in law (where applicable) from one law university: the Punjab University Law College in Lahore (PULC).
What does it matter that these advocates share an educational association? The answer ought to be fairly obvious to anyone concerned with legal education reform: if one wishes to influence the quality of litigators in the District Courts and the High Court in Lahore, any reform must start from the PULC. This lone institution, it seems, is by far the biggest supplier of litigators in Lahore, regardless of the fact that roughly 40% of these litigators come from outside of the city. Thus, PULC is not only the legal education hub for potential lawyer-advocates in Lahore, it is also the leading bridge-creating institution between Lahore and the rest of Punjab for non-Lahore natives wishing to base their legal practice in Lahore.
It is hardly a coincidence that PULC enjoys this dominant position in Lahore and its close vicinity. PULC is the largest of three public-sector law universities that are authorized to regulate the quality of legal education provision in the province through a formal process of affiliation (the other two being Bahauddin Zakariya University in Multan), and Islamia University in Bahawalpur). To these ‘nuclear’ institutions are linked a host of largely private affiliated law colleges.
It was a moment of truth when lawyers in the Lahore District were surveyed about what measures could be taken to improve the quality of courtroom interaction between lawyers and judges. One of their most persistent and unabashed responses was: “lawyers should be better trained for preparing and arguing their cases.” One is compelled to ask what it will take to acknowledge that our public-sector hubs of legal education like PULC have miserably failed to impart basic lawyering skills like case preparation and argumentation.
Arguably, Lahore is not representative of the rest of Punjab. We do not have any objectively verifiable data for the educational background of lawyers in non-Lahore districts. Anecdotally, it seems that affiliated law colleges have a more perceptible impact on the population of litigators in certain districts outside Lahore.
But that does not diminish the problem of non-reform in ‘nuclear’ public-sector law universities. The issue of substandard provision of legal education in affiliated law colleges is an extension of this larger problem: if institutions like PULC cannot fulfill the basic needs of legal education for their target market, it is even less likely they have the capacity to oversee other law colleges.
Ultimately, the focus on affiliates is a red herring, like most other quick fixes that allow a select few their moment of glory. The real reform questions are, how do we reform our benchmark-setting law universities – and when?
This piece was first published in The News International on January 30, 2018.