Vol. 15 No.5 (May 2005), pp.457-459

COUNSEL IN THE CAUCASUS: PROFESSIONALIZATION AND LAW IN GEORGIA, by Christopher P.M. Waters. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004. 192pp.  Cloth.  €85.00/$122.00. ISBN: 9004139478.

Reviewed by Francis Regan, Department of Legal Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.  Email:  francis.regan@flinders.edu.au .

Grand explanatory theories always make me nervous. I wonder what has been left out or ignored in order to make the theory robust. In general we probably need a combination of grand theories as well as consistent attention to the hard cases that do not fit the theory. Together these perspectives are likely to offer a much richer and more accurate description and explanation of complex social or legal phenomena.  This thin but nevertheless substantial book is an example of a study that focuses on a hard case that does not fit the theory. Christopher Waters’ book examines the legal profession in Georgia, as well as the Caucasus. Scholars who are curious about less well-known parts of the world and who are wary of grand explanatory theories will be delighted to read it. The book makes a valuable theoretical and empirical addition to the literature examining what we refer to optimistically and perhaps naively as “the legal profession.” It makes the contribution by confronting contemporary theory head-on and finding it wanting when applied to the case of Georgia and the Caucus.  As I explain below, Waters also implies, but does not explicitly articulate, a deeper reservation about “grand legal profession theory.”

A short introduction sets the scene for the book. The Georgian “legal profession” is, according to Waters, worthy of examination because it is post-Soviet. That is to say, it is important to try to understand what has happened to this part of the world in the years since the collapse of the USSR. It is important to do this for many reasons, including the light shed on the development of the legal system and protection of human rights in Georgia. The Georgian “legal profession” is also important to understand theoretically in terms of whether the features of the post-Soviet “legal profession” in Georgia and the Caucus are, or are becoming, similar to those in many western, rich and industrialised societies.

In the first substantive chapter, Waters reviews the relevant legal profession literature and finds it of limited utility for understanding the case of Georgia. After briefly reviewing the literature, Waters states that he finds Abel’s theory of the “legal profession’s project” overall a “convincing” theory. Nevertheless, Waters argues that some features, particularly the “fixation upon monopoly does not fit the empirical evidence from Georgia and its neighbours” (p.9).  In addition, he suggests that it might be more helpful to [*458] focus on the dynamic in history between the two poles of professionalization and de-professionalization, instead of assuming a singular and inevitable model of “legal profession project.”  Finally, Waters points to the need to focus on what lawyers actually do, rather than focus solely on grand explanatory theories.  While grand theory is sometimes uninterested in the nature of legal work, it is sensible to take account of multiple perspectives on lawyers if we wish to develop an accurate and more comprehensive analysis. The multiple perspectives could include not only grand abstract theories about organization, training and recruitment, but also at the other extreme careful research about the nature of the legal work undertaken by lawyers.  This more nuanced picture might not lend wholehearted support to the grand theories, but the picture might well be a more accurate representation of the diversity of lawyers around the globe.

In other words, the book can be read as an argument that the grand legal profession theory proposed by Abel is not only inadequate to explain the case of Georgia. By implication it is also inadequate to explain lawyers in many other non-rich, non-industrialized societies. Although the so-called modern legal professions might be present in many rich industrialized civil and common law societies, this does not consider the large number of societies where most of the world’s population lives and where many lawyers work. In particular, it does not accurately describe the reality or necessarily the future of lawyers in much of Africa, Latin America, and China, where a ‘profession’ is emerging very rapidly. Legal professions in rich industrialised societies’ are quite simply very different from those in post-socialist Georgia.

The following chapters unpack Waters’ empirical evidence and theoretical arguments. Chapter Two examines the history of the Georgian legal system, including the role of different legal workers and the influence of the USSR upon the Georgian legal system. Chapter Three examines the contemporary legal environment within which legal work is undertaken in Georgia, including a useful distinction between formal and non-state law. The form and content of legal education in Georgia is considered in detail in Chapter Four, with some focus on both the legal education of lawyers and the public. The conflicting calls for regulation and self-regulation of legal workers, as well as the tensions between different strata of lawyers are considered in Chapter Five. The penultimate chapter compares Georgia with Armenia and Azerbijan, where Waters successfully mounts the argument that there is much in common between the history and current situation of lawyers in the three Caucasian societies.

The concluding chapter is a refreshing reiteration of main points, in addition to pointing the way forward. That is, Waters not only reflects on the main conclusions but also considers future research directions and desirable policy reforms of lawyers in Georgia. These are valuable additions to an already fascinating book.

There is much to like about this book, but I also have some minor quibbles. First, as an interested reader, I would have preferred the book to be longer. There are quite a number of points that prompted me to ask “But why?” or “What exactly does that mean?” or “Is there more detail on that issue?” This is not a criticism of the content, but rather a statement about what appears to be overzealous editing. It seems the [*459] book has been slimmed down too much from its original doctoral thesis format. It could have easily and usefully been about one-third longer. Second, there are some editing glitches including missing full stops. Third, the index is thin and not especially useful.  Finally, there are some inconsistent points of style. In particular, some of the chapters end with a whimper rather than a summing-up statement.  It is mildly irritating when the text simply finishes at the end of some chapters, while others highlight and reflect upon key points raised within.

Overall COUNSEL IN THE CAUCUS is well worth reading for those interested in analysing and comparing lawyers and legal work around the globe. It is a fine example of a rich combination of empirical and theoretical  research.

REFERENCE:

Abel, Richard L., and Philip S.C. Lewis (eds). 1988-89.  LAWYERS IN SOCIETY: AN OVERVIEW.  Berkeley: University of California Press.

*************************************************

© Copyright 2005 by the author, Francis Regan.