There is a lot of talk about access to justice. The usual understanding when we hear the phrase “access to justice” is when someone who cannot afford representation be accorded representation. A person cannot be left without a fair trial just because he cannot afford a lawyer. This is where pro bono work comes in. Lawyers dedicate their time to helping people who cannot otherwise afford to pay. I truly believe in this concept of “access to justice”. When I was in the Pro Bono Students’ Committee in the SUSS School of Law, it was meaningful and I saw how the clinics do provide relief for people who cannot afford legal representation. Just being able to speak to a lawyer. To know one’s rights. Very few, if not none, live their life thinking about what laws govern every single action. Sometimes we may now even know that we have contravened something. However, section 79A of the Penal Code 1871 states that ignorance of the law cannot act as a defence. Therefore getting someone to explain the law to us, especially when one is in trouble is important.

However, the term “access to justice” should not just refer to people who cannot afford representation. I would argue that people who can afford representation should be accorded decent representation. If a client is in prison and a lawyer is defending him, the lawyer should visit the client at the appropriate juncture to take his instructions and advise him. Representations should be scrutinised. In civil matters, the lawyers in charge of the matter should peruse the documents and if someone else drafted the document, be it a paralegal, a trainee or even AI, the document should be perused and the arguments debated and thought out. One document should have multiple eyes on it. A wise person once told me. Over time I have learned to use AI to check my work. AI was never prevalent during my time studying law. It only came to the fore when I entered the practice trainee phase. Therefore, for me, I still prefer to use AI to check my work with me still doing the heavy lifting.

The point is, while we focus on the phrase “access to justice” in the narrow context when it comes to helping people who cannot afford legal representation, we also need to be wary of the conduct of law as a business. No amount of legal brilliance can substitute the need for diligence. Preparation for client meetings, going through submissions, giving the client a fair shot to present his case in court is all providing “access to justice”. Imagine a situation where a paying client is in jail and the lawyer who is running his defence never visits him in jail. Does this client not deserve the same “access to justice”?

The term “access to justice” should apply across to all in the legal industry. I may not have even step foot into the industry. However, one does not need to be in the legal industry to understand the concept of diligence.

Yours sincerely,

Daryl