The free movement of attorneys within the EU may be a good thing – just not yet.
The slogan ‘Become a lawyer without passing the bar exam’ has fuelled the dreams of hundreds of Italian graduates who by simply qualifying as an abogado (lawyer) in Spain could immediately start practicing law in Italy. Now they have also the blessing of the EU Court of Justice to do so.
In fact, in July of this year, the European judges decreed that the option of choosing the country where one obtained one’s professional qualifications, as an instance of the broader principle of free circulation of people within the European Union, is one of the main objectives of European Law and cannot constitute an abuse.
Who knows if the founding fathers of the EU, when they established that free circulation was a major pillar of a united Europe, actually had aspiring lawyers in mind who, regardless of their degree or home country, would be prepared to move to another member state for the sole purpose of obtaining a qualification without having to sit their national bar exam.
This was certainly not the thinking of the Council of the Order of Lawyers of Rome which, as happened in a few other Italian cities, considered this practice an abuse and last year was slapped with sanctionary measures from the EU antitrust authorities as a result. Free circulation certainly implies the possibility for European citizens to work and establish their residency in any of the member states. But it’s easier said than done for those whose activities require special professional qualifications. As it turns out, the fact that a professional is allowed to live and work abroad may not be enough if their academic and professional qualifications are not recognised beyond national borders.
Which is why directives have been issued, designed to institute mutual recognition of professional qualifications. What’s missing, however, is complete standardisation of qualification tests, which inevitably leads to ‘examination shopping’, clearly detrimental to professional training and even potentially damaging for the entire community as well.
What’s more, while working as a doctor or a teacher in Italy, France or Great Britain is pretty much the same, that cannot be said of the legal professions.
Firstly, both academic and professional training is strongly linked to national legal systems: a highly trained Italian lawyer could easily be totally unfamiliar with the legislation of other member states. Then there’s the language barrier, which is not an insurmountable problem but Italian lawyers with a working knowledge of English are few, not to mention other languages. And then there are the clients: a lawyer’s clientele is often built up through social networking and relationships of trust, which are difficult to establish outside one’s national borders.
Thus, despite the fact that there are few Italian lawyers practicing abroad, and foreign lawyers working in Italian courts are an even rarer occurrence, there are many abogados whose accent is anything but Castilian. According to European Commission figures, over the last 22 years fewer than 7,500 lawyers have moved from one EU country to another, compared to over 66,000 doctors and 60,000 teachers in higher education. Over that same period, 664 lawyers left Italy while 961 arrived, 91% of which (surprise, surprise) from Spain.
Yet in the European single market, the legal professions cannot afford to be bound hand and foot to a national context.
Lawyers with experience in other countries act as ‘bridgeheads’ for Italian companies operating abroad and can help foreign companies wanting to invest in Italy. The lack of suitably trained professionals can deprive an entire economic system of a competitive edge. Within this particular scenario, the major international law firms are making it work to their advantage. The networks they belong to provide them with fast tracks that enable legal professionals to move between the various countries.
Language skills are essential given the daily relations one must entertain with foreign companies, and networking, in these circles, centres more on the studio’s reputation than on the personal relationships established by an individual lawyer.
Furthermore, circulation is facilitated by specialisation in sectors that have known greater standardisation thanks to the direct or indirect influence of European law. Though the idea, held by some, that 80% of countries’ national legislation is produced by Brussels may be false, there’s no doubt that there are many sectors in which the standardising power of European law plays a major part so that professionals qualified in these areas find it much easier to adapt to foreign contexts.
Yet this particular situation only concerns a very limited number of lawyers – far from what is actually required. Now that Europe has removed bureaucratic obstacles, lawyers should put some effort into exploiting the potential of a unified professional market. To see these kinds of developments take hold will, however, require a very radical cultural revolution in which universities and academic institutions must take a leading role and the very nature of law firms will need to be challenged.
All in the hope that Brussels’ efforts will not boil down to providing a way to avoid a bar examination.
The free movement of attorneys within the EU may be a good thing – just not yet.
