[li]The directive requires State agencies and public institutions to cancel, within 21 days, existing contracts with external advocates that were not approved by the Attorney-General. [/li][li]Furthermore, State agencies and public institutions have been directed to withdraw cases they have filed against each other within 14 days, from July 8. [/li][li]The current LSK Council has been having strained relations with the executive, especially the Attorney-General’s office, which they have accused of failing to properly advise the government to respect court orders. [/li][/ul]
lawyers only lie when they open their mouth !
Si mimi nimesema , nimetoa huku
They have not lost, its only that one single office will have the final say on who gets hired and who does not get hired. Meaning some lawyers will lose and others benefit.
Watu waende kortini wavutane huko. More money for lawyers
Havi ataharibia wenzake kitunguu
uhuru is the man with the sword and the yam, he’ll decide which lawyers eat, and how big of a portion they will eat. on the flipside though, why should 2 gov’t institutions take their disputes to court ?
Havi ni jamaa thorax
because they are not serving the same government but different interests for different cartels.
most of these institutions are funded by the Tax payers money, and paying lawyers millions of ksh, is unacceptable. let them take their differences to the Cabinet.
influence ya Havi pale lsk itakuwa undercut if lawyers can’t eat in peace
Attorney General na Konyagi1 kifamilia ni Kama kitu moja
[COLOR=rgb(40, 50, 78)]Not for long, the winds of change are about
We have to agree that, legal fees, are just corruption avenues . Mumias under Kidero paid some serious money to Lawyers, which i think were totally unjustifiable.
Kuna kitu inaitwa breach of contract. You cannot just wake up and say you are revoking a contract which the parties entered into lawfully, just because there was no consent of Anthony-Genero. What the lawyers whose contracts have been withdrawn will do, is sue those institutions for breach of contract. Then the institutions will STILL pay the lawyers - at the expense of the Kenyan taxpayer.
You cannot force me to accept your services. A lawyer is a service and consumer protection laws protect anyone from consequences if they refuse your services. Legal services are not like a construction contract where you refuse to pay for work done. For legal services, i work with you when i want it is even permissible to fire a lawyer in the middle of a court session and retain new services as the court session proceeds.
Mtu kama Grand Mugger anakula legal fee ya 40 Millis from NCPD
:D:D:D who said anything about forcing a client to accept the services of a lawyer?
Not every sputtering, foaming-at-the-mouth lawyer with an ill-fitting suit gets these contracts. The government institutions THEMSELVES, advertise, vet and shortlist each law firm.
I am sure you know that contracts to render services to these government institutions last for one to two years. Their conditions are stipulated well in advance. The contracts are not made by the lawyers. They are made by the government institutions then offered to the lawyers on a take-it-or-leave-it basis - a bit like your standard contract for supply of electricity. You only sign on the dotted line.
Once a contract is formalised, you cannot come in later and impose conditions that were not initially agreed upon [like the making the consent of the attorney general a prerequisite to the contract] and then use that condition to terminate the contract. It not only makes nonsense of contracts, it IS breach of contract and has nothing to do with consumer protection. For that, the lawyers will have a cause of action.
You are right. You can fire your lawyer at any time. But do not go thinking that there will be nothing to pay for it. The lawyer will bill for work done and guess what, you will still have to pay the new lawyer just as much. In this case, it’s at the expense of the taxpayer.
The LSK’s AGM is coming up sometime this month. One of the motions up for debate is the expulsion of Paul Kihara Kariuki as a Member of the LSK. Is there a ka something?
Just becuase I retain your services today, does not mean i am obliged to retain your services tomorrow. Everyone who retains a lawyer vets them. That is common sense. Just because you were vetted does not mean i have to retain you indefinitely. it only means the government conducted due diligence and retained them. At any time, they can decide they no longer wish to pay the retainer and that is the end of that. They are[SIZE=7] not government employees. [/SIZE][SIZE=4] Thus, they are not employees protected by labor laws. They provide an on-demand service an when such a service is no longer needed for any reason and even without any reason, their client has a right to leave them via a verbal or written notice. [/SIZE]
Lawyers bill you after every court appearance plus the retainer. Once you do that, you can leave and hire a new one. They have already been paid for their legal services, the government intends to stop all litigation against agency to agency. So they will no longer be retained.
I don’t get his line of argument.Must one use a pre qualified supplier no matter how expensive they are?