Back to Top

Inter-Governmental Bar Council

 

Bar Council for the Independent Legal Profession

 

IVU-IGO Inter-Governmental Bar Council SealThe Inter-Governmental Bar Council (IGBC) is the international “Licensing Bar” of the Independent Legal Profession, established as an official agency of the Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ), an autonomous official body of the intergovernmental organization (IGO) Ignita Veritas United (IVU), which serves as the host institution providing supporting infrastructure.

 

The Bar Council (IGBC) embodies the original and traditional Bar of the independent Judiciary Profession, governing and expanding the historical class of scholarly Barristers internationally, to uphold the quality and integrity of the Independent Legal Profession of lawyers free from all governmental influence.

 

This time-tested model of proven success, which carried civilization from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance, promotes the Magna Carta principles of the Rule of Law which are the foundations of all civil rights and human rights.

 

This authentic system provides and ensures a necessary balance of power between the State and the Judiciary, by leveraging the primary authority of the Courts of Common Law under customary international law.

 

IVU-IGO Inter-Governmental Bar CouncilThe Inter-Governmental Bar Council (IGBC) has the rare privilege and official authority to establish Solicitors and create proper Barristers by calling to its Bar, granting lawyers an International Practising Certificate, as an official license to practice law worldwide, while preserving their political and jurisdictional independence from any particular State.

 

These unique powers and authorities, and the resulting weight and impact of its Bar status and Practising Certificates as international licenses, are empowered by the universal jurisdiction of an intergovernmental Court of Justice, at the supra-governmental level of conventional international law.

 

The Bar Council (IGBC) provides full and equal opportunity for all Solicitors and Barristers, for earned merit, by fair and open access to achieving qualifications, to enjoy career advancement to the highest levels of the Independent Legal and Judiciary Professions internationally.

 

Bar CouncilThe Inter-Governmental Bar Council (IGBC) is primarily operated by the Independent Judiciary of the Sovereign Court of International Justice (SCIJ) as the IGO High Court for international law and human rights, supported by the Law Faculty of Ignita Veritas University, and the Ministries of Justice of the Member States of the IGO Ignita Veritas United (IVU).

 

All Barristers and Judges of the Bar Council (IGBC) are required to be members of the traditional Templar Inn of Court, and a number of its Barristers choose to practice law in Chambers under the institutional support of the Inn of Court.

 

As a non-profit institution, the Bar Council (IGBC) uses all net proceeds to support the humanitarian operations of the host IGO Ignita Veritas United (IVU), especially including its Human Rights Court of the independent Judiciary, through the Public Access to Justice Endowment (PAJE) Fund.

 

 


 

Authentic “Bar” of the Legal Profession

 

Authentic Bar of the Legal ProfessionEarly 19th century British scholars documented that the traditional Bar Council originated from the physical “Bar, in Courts of Justice”. This was a “partition”, literally a wooden bar, forming “an enclosure… where the council are placed to plead causes… where the lawyers or advocates are seated, because anciently, there was a bar to separate the pleaders”. [1]

 

Early 20th century legal scholars explained the original practical reasons for having a “partition or bar dividing the English law-courts into two parts”, as being “for the purpose of separating the members and officials of the Court from the prisoners or suitors [plaintiffs], their advocates and the general public.” [2]

 

This wooden bar was a simple measure to provide basic security and public order, and promote respect for the Court, its Judges, and the lawyers.

 

In traditional British law practice, the process of “calling to the Bar”, as a status within the Courts, is the “exclusive privilege” of the “Inns of Court”. In customary international practice based upon the British system, “Generally attorneys are admitted in one Court to practice in all Courts. Each of the United States [State Supreme] Courts has a Bar of its own.” [3]

 

It is thus an established legal doctrine of customary international law that “The Bar” itself authentically and inherently belongs exclusively to an official Court of Law, which has full authority for the relevant jurisdiction.

 

As a result of these legal facts, both the Bar and the Inns of Court must be governed by the Independent Judiciary Profession, without interference by any branch of government of the State.

 

Legal scholars of the early 20th century documented an important legal fact:

 

“In most States there is a State Bar Association… These consist of such members of its Bar as desire thus to associate… These associations have no official recognition, but their influence is considerable in recommending… Judicial establishment and procedure.” [4]

 

Here the phrase “no official recognition” means that the true Bar of the Independent Judiciary Profession does not recognize governmental State Bars as having legitimacy, because not having a proper Barrister class, and placing the Judiciary under the State, violates customary Common Law under conventional international law.

 

These established facts of the historical record further confirm the legal doctrine that the true Bar of real Barristers can only be governed directly by the official authority of a Court of Law operated by the Independent Judiciary Profession, and not by any mere “association” nor other quasi-agency of any State government.

 

Scholars note that in the modern practice of State Bar Associations, such as in the United States, lawyers are not “called to” the Bar, but rather are merely licensed to “practice under” a State association styled as a “Bar”, such that they never become proper “Barristers”.

 

This creates only “a separate class of… special pleaders [trial lawyers]… who, instead of being called, took out licenses, granted for one year only, but renewable, to practise [law] under the Bar”, conducting only “the ordinary work of a Junior Barrister.” [5]

 

The reality of this legal fact is evidenced by the major difference in the Oaths administered to State lawyers versus Barristers: American lawyers only “swear… to abide by the Rules… of the State” [6], whereas Barristers “swear… [to] the Queen… according to law… after the laws and usages of this realm”, explicitly holding the Common Law above all else [7].

 

The “Common Law” is essentially the timeless principles of Natural Law, of the fundamental legal values common to humanity, as the “Higher Law” above and beyond the limited statutory jurisdiction of the State, as the true “Law above the Law”, established in historical customary law and recognized in modern conventional international law. [8]

 

Therefore, the only authentic model for legitimate regulation of the Independent Legal Profession is that of the historical Bar Council, comprised of Barristers with special qualifications, governed by the Independent Judiciary Profession under authority of an official Court for the relevant jurisdiction.

 

 


 

Bar Council Authorities of International Law

 

The Inter-Governmental Bar Council (IGBC) is empowered with official and universal authorities for both the governance and protection of the Independent Legal and Judiciary Professions, as mandates declared and protected by codified conventional international law:

 

The Bar Council (IGBC) has a mandate to “exercise its functions without external interference” by States, and to “cooperate with governments to ensure that… [its] lawyers are able, without improper interference, to counsel and assist their clients in accordance with the law” (1990 Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Articles 24, 25).

 

Bar Council ensures the “protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms” by “effective access to legal services provided by an Independent Legal Profession”, empowering lawyers to “at all times act freely and diligently” for “protecting the rights of their clients and in promoting the cause of Justice” (1990 Role of Lawyers, Preamble: ¶9, Articles 9, 14).

 

Bar Council advances the rights and authorities of “lawyers without… formal status” of State government licensing or registration, by mandate of international law that “No Court or administrative authority” of a State “shall refuse to recognize the right of a lawyer to appear before it” regardless of recognition (1990 Role of Lawyers, Preamble: ¶11, Article 19).

 

Bar Council asserts international rights that: “Governments shall ensure… effective and equal access to [its] lawyers… without distinction [or] discrimination based on… political or other opinion… or other status” including membership in the Independent Legal Profession free from State influence (1990 Role of Lawyers, Article 2).

 

Bar Council has an enforceable mandate for “protecting [its] members from persecution and improper restrictions and infringements”, and to “ensure that lawyers” can practice law “without censorship”, “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment, or improper interference” by any State government or agency (1990 Role of Lawyers, Preamble: ¶10, Articles 8, 16, 25).

 

To provide full and equal opportunity for all lawyers by earned merit, the Bar Council “shall ensure that there is no discrimination… [on] practice within the legal profession on the grounds of… political or other opinion… or other status” (1990 Role of Lawyers, Article 10).

 

 


 

Consumer Protection Quality Control of Legal Services

 

The Inter-Governmental Bar Council (IGBC) enforces the “duties of a lawyer” to effectively represent the rights and interests of clients “diligently in accordance with the law and recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession”, through disciplinary actions handled “fairly” based upon a “fair hearing” by an “impartial disciplinary committee” and “subject to an independent Judicial review” (1990 Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Articles 9, 14, 27-28).

 

To ensure that disciplinary measures are used exclusively for reasonable quality control, and never abused for political influence, Bar Council lawyers “shall not… be threatened with sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognized professional duties, standards and ethics”, and shall freely practice law “without suffering professional restrictions by reason of their lawful action” (1990 Role of Lawyers, Articles 16, 23).

 

As required by human rights law: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference… nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation” to undermine legal representation of client rights and interests (1948 Declaration on Human Rights, Article 12; 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 17).

 

 


 

Source References

 

[1] London Encyclopaedia, 1st Edition, Thomas Tegg, London (1829), Volume 3, “Bar”, at p.515.

 

[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 3, “Bar, The”, at p.378.

 

[3] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 3, “Bar, The”, at p.378.

 

[4] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 3, “Bar, The”, at pp.378-379.

 

[5] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, New York (1911), Volume 3, “Barrister”, at p.438.

 

[6] NoteOaths of lawyers in the United States are openly published on the official websites of all State Bar Associations.

 

[7] Official Website, About the Judiciary: The Judiciary the Government and the Constitution: Oaths, UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, judiciary.gov.uk (March 2017).

 

[8] Edward Samuel Corwin, The ‘Higher Law’ Background of American Constitutional Law. Liberty Fund (1928), Great Seal Books (1955); Compiled from Harvard Law Review articles by Edward S. Corwin (1878-1963), a Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University (1908-1946).

 

You cannot copy content of this page