The Bangladesh Bar Council enrolment process has long been a thorn in the side of law graduates. For years, aspiring advocates have faced a system that prioritises rote memorisation over practical skills, leaving many ill-prepared for the realities of legal practice. When the Judicial Reform Commission recently addressed some of these issues, I was initially hopeful. However, upon reading their recommendations, I was left deeply disappointed. Their analysis was narrow, their solutions superficial, and their vision for reform fell far short of what the legal profession urgently needs.
What makes a good advocate?
The word "advocate" originates from the Latin advocatus, meaning "one called to aid or support." In Roman law, an advocate was someone who pleaded cases on behalf of others in court. Today, the role of an advocate remains fundamentally the same: to represent clients effectively and uphold justice. But what qualities and qualifications are needed to be a good advocate? Is it the ability to memorise sections of the Penal Code or the Civil Procedure Code? Or is it the ability to apply the law creatively, argue persuasively, and navigate complex legal systems?
The Judicial Reform Commission failed to address these critical questions. Instead, they offered broad, generalised suggestions, such as adding more laws—like Family Law, Financial Court Law, and Labor Law—to the Bar Council syllabus. While these subjects are undoubtedly important, their inclusion alone will not transform law graduates into competent advocates. After all, what is the purpose of a four-year law degree if not to provide a comprehensive legal education?
Flawed focus on memorisation
A significant portion of the Bar Council enrolment exam focuses on memorising sections of the Penal Code, Civil Procedure Code, and Criminal Procedure Code. This approach is not only outdated but also irrelevant to the skills needed in modern legal practice. In 2025, no one will expect an advocate to recite sections of the law from memory. With legal databases and mobile apps readily available, the ability to look up statutes is no longer a challenge. What matters is the ability to interpret and apply the law effectively.
Consider the realities of legal practice: preparing a case requires hours, sometimes days, of studying the material, understanding the facts, and identifying the relevant legal principles. When you finally stand before a judge, you may have only 5 or 10 minutes to present your case. Does memorising sections of the law help you in that critical moment? No. What matters is your ability to articulate your argument clearly, apply the law to the facts, and persuade the court. Memorisation might help you at home, where you have all the tools at your disposal to look up the relevant sections. But in the courtroom, it’s your analytical skills, preparation, and advocacy that make the difference.
And let’s be honest—how many sections can anyone realistically memorise? With countless acts, regulations, and amendments, no one can claim to know every provision by heart. Instead of testing memorisation, the Bar Council should focus on assessing whether aspiring advocates can think critically, analyse cases, and present arguments effectively. After all, the law is not about memorising words—it’s about understanding principles and applying them to achieve justice.
Learning from the British BPTC
Compare this to the British Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC), a rigorous program designed to equip aspiring barristers with practical skills. The BPTC emphasises case analysis, legal drafting, and advocacy exercises—skills that are directly relevant to courtroom practice. Its exams test candidates on their ability to apply the law, not regurgitate it. For example, in civil and criminal litigation exams, candidates are not asked to memorise sections of the law but to demonstrate their understanding of legal principles and their ability to apply them to real-world scenarios.
To the surprise of many, barristers in the UK routinely carry reference books like the White Book (for civil litigation) and Blackstone’s Criminal Practice (for criminal litigation) when they appear in court. These books serve as essential tools, allowing barristers to provide accurate references if asked by the judge. This practice underscores a fundamental truth: the law is not about memorisation but about preparation, understanding, and application. Barristers spend hours preparing their cases, studying the facts, and identifying the relevant legal principles. When they step into the courtroom, their focus is on presenting a compelling argument, not reciting sections from memory.
Sadly, the Judicial Reform Commission mentioned the BPTC but failed to analyse its structure or significance. This missed opportunity highlights the commission’s lack of vision and ambition. Instead of embracing a modern, application-based approach, they clung to an outdated system that prioritises rote memorisation over practical skills.
A Path Forward
The reforms needed do not require political consensus—they require common sense and honesty. First, the Bar Council must shift its focus from memorisation to application-based learning. Exams should test candidates on their ability to analyse legal problems, draft pleadings, and argue cases. Second, the Judicial Reform Commission should revisit its recommendations, drawing inspiration from successful models like the BPTC. Finally, legal education must be modernised to reflect the realities of 21st-century practice, where technology and practical skills are paramount.
The Judicial Reform Commission had an opportunity to set a gold standard for legal education and the profession. Instead, they offered timid, superficial solutions that fail to address the core issues. Memorising statutes will not prepare advocates for the challenges of modern legal practice. What we need is a system that prioritises practical skills, critical thinking, and the ability to apply the law effectively.
In our court system, we need good, honest advocates—and we need them fast. The quality of advocates, particularly in the lower courts, is a glaring concern. Many of the advocates produced by the Bangladesh Bar Council are below par, lacking the skills and ethical grounding necessary to uphold justice. This not only undermines the credibility of the legal profession but also denies ordinary citizens access to competent representation.
As I reflect on the plight of the 70,000-plus law graduates struggling under this broken system, I can’t help but ask: Who is responsible for destroying their dreams and potential? Is it the Bangladesh Bar Council, for clinging to an outdated enrolment process? Is it the universities, for failing to provide a practical legal education? Or is it the Judicial Reform Commission, for lacking the vision and courage to enact meaningful change? Whoever it is, the cost of their failure is borne by thousands of young minds who deserve better.
The time for half-hearted reforms is over. The Bar Council and the Judicial Reform Commission must act decisively to overhaul the enrolment process and raise the standard of legal education. Only then can we ensure that Bangladesh’s legal profession meets the demands of the 21st century and delivers justice for all.
*Miraz M Zaman, Barrister at Law, Email: mirajzaman.bdlaw@gmail.com