৩৫ বছরের মধ্যে অবশ্যই একজন আইনজীবী হতে হবে! Must be a lawyer within 35 years!

There has been much discussion and criticism about the age at which one can enter the legal profession. This discussion has been intensified by the Hon 'ble Minister's statement on '35 Years'. Some are happy to say 'Alhamdulillah' in this decision.

Personally I am not happy with this new rule. My personal opinion is as follows -

1. Those who are too critical of the entry deadline do not really understand what they are doing. No one can really take away someone's rig. This was a rule I had in mind for any job or job in Bangladesh.

2. There is a culture of entering the profession at an early age from the time of the weather. People who graduate in more than one subject or work in another occupation with a little more experience of life and reality come into the profession; they are naturally a little mature. As a result, I think they can give the client practical advice.

3. Those who come to this profession at an early age do not bring any kindness or compassion. They graduated on this subject and many came after post graduation. They went through 3 difficult stages of their academic studies and Advocacy examinations through the very usual norms and then came to this profession. To get into this profession, they are either very young, young or have a higher degree in law from abroad, leaving Asad behind and passing their qualifications. If an older person can come to this profession better than a younger person, then he can be understood in all respects of skill, mind, patience and ability. Rather, he is the victim of an unequal competition. Even though he is older, he is actually waging a war called 'competition' with the young man; this proves his worthiness. Even after entering the profession, they do not earn their livelihood on the mercy of anyone, public or private. Rather, they succeeded in their profession on their own merits and increased the government's revenue by paying court fees of millions of rupees. Are there any significant government expenditures on them in return? Does the government pay them monthly? Allowance? So why the hurdle?

4. Perhaps the number of lawyers in the court is increasing and the number of clients is decreasing; therefore, efforts are being made to find a way to reduce the number of lawyers. These are, in fact, attempts to please the masses, nothing to do.

My suggestion is-

1. If this is done with the intention of reducing the number of lawyers and increasing the income of the current lawyers, then there is another way. Request from each bar to see how many lawyers they need per year. Or let the Bar Council or the Ministry of Law and Justice decide how many lawyers will be recruited from across the country in a given year. Then take the test and hire just as many lawyers from the best of the best. Then all the problems are solved. It is not the job of the Bar Council or the State to deprive anyone of their right to please a particular group of people who are lagging behind in terms of merit, mind and qualifications. It is the job of the state to select the best service providers to deliver quality services to the general public.

2. A torment called 'Legal Aid' has been imposed on lawyers. You have compulsorily taken the cases that are usually haramisha to Legal Aid. People are not getting the right services, and lawyers are not earning. So what's the benefit of a lawyer's license?

3. Standardize the process of obtaining a law degree and further improve the quality of the tests. Besides, give lawyers a fixed salary allowance for the first 5/10 years and provide them with proper training.

These will be the real work. Besides what you're going to do, the whole thing makes no sense to me.