← Back to News

It'd be counterproductive for State to ditch private advocates

By The Standard January 15, 2026

Source: The Standard

It'd be counterproductive for State to ditch private advocates

The recent Nakuru High Court orders barring public entities from engaging private advocates have stirred intense debate across the legal and governance landscape.The implications of those orders, particularly since they were issued at the ex parte stage, are far-reaching and, quite frankly, unsettling. One cannot ignore the ripple effects of halting all payments to private law firms, some of which are tied to taxed court awards, while others stem from appellate decisions at the Court of Appeal.These are not discretionary payments but obligations arising from concluded legal processes. When such orders halt payments even in those instances, they become counterproductive, creating unnecessary hardship for advocates and stalling justice for clients who have already gone through the judicial chain. The orders also suffer the conflict with the awards of a higher court, let's say the Court of Appeal.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsAppThat said, while the orders may be drastic, the Law Society of Kenya’s reaction, branding the court’s decision as “judicial impunity,” was misplaced. Our Constitution and legal order do not provide room for selective obedience to court decisions.The painful but necessary cost of the rule of law is that we must obey it, even when it is inconvenient to do so. The proper path is to move to set the orders aside through the available legal channels.To openly disparage the Judiciary undermines the very foundation upon which the legal profession rests. Advocates, more than any other group, must exemplify respect for judicial processes. It is this fidelity to the law that separates advocates from agitators.Turning to the substance of the matter, there is no sound justification to bar public entities from tendering private legal services, provided such tenders are conducted in full compliance with Article 227 of the Constitution.That provision is clear: public procurement, including for professional services, must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective. Legal services are no exception. Public entities often face complex and specialised legal challenges that go beyond the routine functions of their internal legal departments.Matters such as constitutional litigation, international arbitration, public-private partnership negotiations, or high-value commercial disputes demand expertise that may not be readily available in-house.It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The implications of those orders, particularly since they were issued at the ex parte stage, are far-reaching and, quite frankly, unsettling. One cannot ignore the ripple effects of halting all payments to private law firms, some of which are tied to taxed court awards, while others stem from appellate decisions at the Court of Appeal.These are not discretionary payments but obligations arising from concluded legal processes. When such orders halt payments even in those instances, they become counterproductive, creating unnecessary hardship for advocates and stalling justice for clients who have already gone through the judicial chain. The orders also suffer the conflict with the awards of a higher court, let's say the Court of Appeal.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsAppThat said, while the orders may be drastic, the Law Society of Kenya’s reaction, branding the court’s decision as “judicial impunity,” was misplaced. Our Constitution and legal order do not provide room for selective obedience to court decisions.The painful but necessary cost of the rule of law is that we must obey it, even when it is inconvenient to do so. The proper path is to move to set the orders aside through the available legal channels.To openly disparage the Judiciary undermines the very foundation upon which the legal profession rests. Advocates, more than any other group, must exemplify respect for judicial processes. It is this fidelity to the law that separates advocates from agitators.Turning to the substance of the matter, there is no sound justification to bar public entities from tendering private legal services, provided such tenders are conducted in full compliance with Article 227 of the Constitution.That provision is clear: public procurement, including for professional services, must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective. Legal services are no exception. Public entities often face complex and specialised legal challenges that go beyond the routine functions of their internal legal departments.Matters such as constitutional litigation, international arbitration, public-private partnership negotiations, or high-value commercial disputes demand expertise that may not be readily available in-house.It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

These are not discretionary payments but obligations arising from concluded legal processes. When such orders halt payments even in those instances, they become counterproductive, creating unnecessary hardship for advocates and stalling justice for clients who have already gone through the judicial chain. The orders also suffer the conflict with the awards of a higher court, let's say the Court of Appeal.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsAppThat said, while the orders may be drastic, the Law Society of Kenya’s reaction, branding the court’s decision as “judicial impunity,” was misplaced. Our Constitution and legal order do not provide room for selective obedience to court decisions.The painful but necessary cost of the rule of law is that we must obey it, even when it is inconvenient to do so. The proper path is to move to set the orders aside through the available legal channels.To openly disparage the Judiciary undermines the very foundation upon which the legal profession rests. Advocates, more than any other group, must exemplify respect for judicial processes. It is this fidelity to the law that separates advocates from agitators.Turning to the substance of the matter, there is no sound justification to bar public entities from tendering private legal services, provided such tenders are conducted in full compliance with Article 227 of the Constitution.That provision is clear: public procurement, including for professional services, must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective. Legal services are no exception. Public entities often face complex and specialised legal challenges that go beyond the routine functions of their internal legal departments.Matters such as constitutional litigation, international arbitration, public-private partnership negotiations, or high-value commercial disputes demand expertise that may not be readily available in-house.It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

That said, while the orders may be drastic, the Law Society of Kenya’s reaction, branding the court’s decision as “judicial impunity,” was misplaced. Our Constitution and legal order do not provide room for selective obedience to court decisions.The painful but necessary cost of the rule of law is that we must obey it, even when it is inconvenient to do so. The proper path is to move to set the orders aside through the available legal channels.To openly disparage the Judiciary undermines the very foundation upon which the legal profession rests. Advocates, more than any other group, must exemplify respect for judicial processes. It is this fidelity to the law that separates advocates from agitators.Turning to the substance of the matter, there is no sound justification to bar public entities from tendering private legal services, provided such tenders are conducted in full compliance with Article 227 of the Constitution.That provision is clear: public procurement, including for professional services, must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective. Legal services are no exception. Public entities often face complex and specialised legal challenges that go beyond the routine functions of their internal legal departments.Matters such as constitutional litigation, international arbitration, public-private partnership negotiations, or high-value commercial disputes demand expertise that may not be readily available in-house.It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The painful but necessary cost of the rule of law is that we must obey it, even when it is inconvenient to do so. The proper path is to move to set the orders aside through the available legal channels.To openly disparage the Judiciary undermines the very foundation upon which the legal profession rests. Advocates, more than any other group, must exemplify respect for judicial processes. It is this fidelity to the law that separates advocates from agitators.Turning to the substance of the matter, there is no sound justification to bar public entities from tendering private legal services, provided such tenders are conducted in full compliance with Article 227 of the Constitution.That provision is clear: public procurement, including for professional services, must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective. Legal services are no exception. Public entities often face complex and specialised legal challenges that go beyond the routine functions of their internal legal departments.Matters such as constitutional litigation, international arbitration, public-private partnership negotiations, or high-value commercial disputes demand expertise that may not be readily available in-house.It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

To openly disparage the Judiciary undermines the very foundation upon which the legal profession rests. Advocates, more than any other group, must exemplify respect for judicial processes. It is this fidelity to the law that separates advocates from agitators.Turning to the substance of the matter, there is no sound justification to bar public entities from tendering private legal services, provided such tenders are conducted in full compliance with Article 227 of the Constitution.That provision is clear: public procurement, including for professional services, must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective. Legal services are no exception. Public entities often face complex and specialised legal challenges that go beyond the routine functions of their internal legal departments.Matters such as constitutional litigation, international arbitration, public-private partnership negotiations, or high-value commercial disputes demand expertise that may not be readily available in-house.It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

Turning to the substance of the matter, there is no sound justification to bar public entities from tendering private legal services, provided such tenders are conducted in full compliance with Article 227 of the Constitution.That provision is clear: public procurement, including for professional services, must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective. Legal services are no exception. Public entities often face complex and specialised legal challenges that go beyond the routine functions of their internal legal departments.Matters such as constitutional litigation, international arbitration, public-private partnership negotiations, or high-value commercial disputes demand expertise that may not be readily available in-house.It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

That provision is clear: public procurement, including for professional services, must be fair, equitable, transparent, competitive, and cost-effective. Legal services are no exception. Public entities often face complex and specialised legal challenges that go beyond the routine functions of their internal legal departments.Matters such as constitutional litigation, international arbitration, public-private partnership negotiations, or high-value commercial disputes demand expertise that may not be readily available in-house.It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

Matters such as constitutional litigation, international arbitration, public-private partnership negotiations, or high-value commercial disputes demand expertise that may not be readily available in-house.It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

It would be counterintuitive to deny public institutions the freedom to seek competent representation from the private bar under such circumstances.It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

It is important to distinguish between the legality of tendering for legal services and the prudence of expenditure. These are two distinct questions that should not be conflated. The constitutional test under Article 227 addresses how services are procured, whether the process is fair and transparent.The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The question of how much those services cost is a separate consideration, guided by existing statutory frameworks. The Advocates (Remuneration) Order already provides clear scales and ceilings for professional fees. Where public entities have concerns about costs, they can always refer to the prescribed schedules or seek taxation by the court. Therefore, the uproar over alleged inflated legal fees is misplaced. Mechanisms to manage legal costs already exist, and if properly applied, they prevent abuse without requiring a blanket ban on private legal engagement.Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

Public entities, like private clients, deserve choice within the law. A blanket prohibition on hiring private counsel risks paralysing public institutions that require specialised advice or representation.Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

Moreover, such a restriction would undermine the constitutional principles of access to justice and the right to fair representation. Public interest is not served by forcing a county or state agency to proceed in a complex litigation matter without qualified representation simply because of an overly rigid interpretation of the procurement framework.Stay informed. Subscribe to our newsletterBy clicking on theSIGN UPbutton, you agree to ourTerms & Conditionsand thePrivacy PolicySIGN UPThe focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The focus, instead, should be on transparency. If public entities can ensure open, accountable tendering for legal services, most of the controversy disappears. The solution lies in designing a framework where qualifications, experience, and cost are objectively evaluated, and the process is auditable.Stay Informed, Stay Empowered: Download the Standard ePaper App!This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

This would not only build public confidence but also protect both the public purse and the integrity of the legal profession. Legal tendering can be made more open and accountable, with periodic disclosure of contracts and performance outcomes, ensuring that only firms meeting the highest professional and ethical standards serve public institutions.It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

It is also worth noting that law is a profession grounded in trust and accountability. Many private practitioners who represent public bodies have done so diligently, securing favourable judgments and saving the taxpayer significant sums.To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

To suddenly categorise such engagements as unlawful or irregular is to overlook the immense contribution of the private bar in defending public interest cases, including those against the state itself. In truth, the relationship between private advocates and public entities has often advanced justice, not undermined it, in many ways.The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

The Attorney General and public legal officers play a crucial role, but their offices cannot possibly handle every legal matter in a country of this complexity and scale. Outsourcing is an acknowledgment of reality. What matters is that outsourcing follows lawful and transparent procedures.In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

In the end, the conversation should shift from whether public entities should engage private advocates to how they should do so lawfully. The courts, the LSK, and public institutions all have a stake in refining this process.In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

In defending the rule of law, we also defend the dignity of our profession. And in insisting that public entities be allowed to tender for legal services within the law, we defend the Constitution itself, a document that, at its heart, entrenches legal representation as a core tenet.Follow The Standard
channel
on WhatsApp

Subscribe to our newsletter and stay updated on the latest developments and special
offers!

Pick your favourite topics below for a tailor made homepage just for you

Source: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/opinion/article/2001538608/itd-be-counterproductive-for-state-to-ditch-private-advocates