Should the Bar Association of Sri Lanka Consider a Retirement Age or Fitness-to-Practise Framework for Lawyers?
The Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) has, in recent years, voiced its views on matters affecting the administration of justice, including proposals concerning the retirement age and extension of service for judges and magistrates. The Association has argued that extending the tenure of judicial officers raises important questions relating to judicial independence, institutional renewal, and public confidence in the justice system.
If the BASL believes that age and continued service are legitimate issues for discussion in relation to judges, then it is also reasonable to ask whether similar questions should be considered in relation to members of the legal profession itself.
This is not a criticism of senior lawyers as a whole. On the contrary, many of Sri Lanka's most respected advocates have continued to make invaluable contributions to the profession through their knowledge, experience, and mentorship. Their decades of legal practice have shaped the country's legal system and inspired generations of younger practitioners.
However, the issue is whether the legal profession should have a structured mechanism to ensure that every practising lawyer remains capable of providing competent and effective representation throughout their career.
Unlike judges, who are generally subject to statutory retirement ages, lawyers in Sri Lanka may continue practising indefinitely, provided they remain entitled to do so under the applicable professional rules. While this approach respects professional independence, it also raises an important policy question: should there be safeguards where advancing age or serious health conditions substantially affect a lawyer's ability to represent clients effectively?
This is not a uniquely Sri Lankan issue. Around the world, legal regulators are increasingly discussing professional competence, continuing education, and fitness to practise throughout a lawyer's career. The objective is not to discriminate against older lawyers but to protect clients and maintain confidence in the legal profession.
The legal profession is built upon trust. Clients place their liberty, property, businesses, and family disputes in the hands of their lawyers. They expect competent legal advice, careful preparation, punctual attendance in court, and the ability to present arguments effectively. If a lawyer is no longer capable of fulfilling those responsibilities because of serious illness or cognitive impairment, the consequences may be significant for the client.
The discussion should therefore focus on competence rather than age alone.
Many lawyers remain exceptionally capable well into their seventies or even eighties. Equally, some practitioners may face health challenges much earlier in their careers. Any reform should therefore avoid arbitrary assumptions based solely on chronological age.
Instead, the BASL could consider introducing a comprehensive fitness-to-practise framework. Such a framework might include periodic declarations of professional capacity, continuing professional development requirements, and clear procedures for addressing concerns where there is credible evidence that a lawyer's health has materially affected their ability to practise.
Such measures would protect both the public and the reputation of the profession.
Another important aspect of this debate concerns opportunities for younger lawyers.
Each year, new graduates enter the legal profession with enthusiasm, modern legal knowledge, and a desire to build successful careers. Many of these young lawyers face significant challenges in establishing themselves. They often struggle to obtain meaningful work, courtroom experience, and opportunities to develop their practices.
While experienced lawyers naturally have established client bases and reputations, the profession must also ensure that there is room for generational renewal. A healthy legal system depends on a balance between experience and new talent.
This is not to suggest that senior lawyers should simply retire because they have reached a particular age. Rather, it is to recognise that every profession requires succession planning. Doctors, academics, judges, civil servants, and many other professionals eventually step back from full-time practice while continuing to contribute through mentoring, teaching, arbitration, mediation, or advisory work.
The legal profession should encourage similar pathways.
Senior lawyers possess knowledge that cannot easily be replaced. Instead of remaining in demanding litigation practices indefinitely, some may choose to mentor junior lawyers, provide specialist legal opinions, conduct professional training, or serve as mediators and arbitrators. Such roles would enable the profession to continue benefiting from their expertise while also creating opportunities for younger practitioners to gain courtroom experience.
If the BASL believes that extending the retirement age of judges raises concerns about efficiency, independence, or public confidence, consistency requires that the legal profession also examine whether its own regulatory framework remains fit for purpose.
This is not a call for mandatory retirement based solely on age. Such a proposal could be unfair to many highly capable senior lawyers who continue to provide excellent legal services.
Rather, it is a call for an informed discussion about competence, professional standards, and the long-term future of Sri Lanka's legal profession.
Any reform should be based on objective evidence, medical science, and professional ethics—not stereotypes about ageing. The aim should always be to protect clients, strengthen public confidence, and maintain the highest standards of advocacy.
The BASL has long presented itself as the guardian of professional standards within Sri Lanka's legal community. That role carries responsibilities not only in defending the independence of the judiciary but also in ensuring that the legal profession itself remains accountable to the public it serves.
Public confidence in the justice system depends upon confidence in every participant within that system—judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and court officials alike.
Ultimately, the question is one of consistency. If age and continued service are considered relevant when discussing judges and magistrates, then the same conversation should not be regarded as off limits when considering the legal profession itself.
The discussion should be conducted respectfully, without diminishing the enormous contributions made by senior members of the Bar. At the same time, the profession should be willing to consider reforms that promote competence, protect clients, encourage younger lawyers, and strengthen the administration of justice.
A modern legal profession must evolve with changing expectations. Whether that evolution involves a retirement age, a fitness-to-practise assessment, or another evidence-based approach is a matter for thoughtful debate. What is important is that the conversation takes place openly, fairly, and with the interests of justice at its centre.