The legal profession in Indonesia is normatively positioned as a noble office that upholds justice and client protection. However, advocates face ethical dilemmas exacerbated by a multi-organizational (multi-bar) system, fragmented regulations, and weak coordination in ethics enforcement. Advocates sanctioned by one organization may move to another, weakening the credibility of the sanction and public trust. This normative-empirical research analyzes the ethical dilemmas of advocates and designs a model for an ideal professional court. Data were collected through legislative reviews, case studies, comparisons of the Malaysian, Dutch, German, and US systems, and interviews with the Supervisory Commission and Honorary Council of PERADI Bandar Lampung. The findings show that ethical dilemmas arise at three levels: (1) individual—price pressures and competition encourage deviations from ethical standards; (2) organizational—conflicts between upholding ethics and protecting members; (3) institutional—the absence of a single authority triggers a shopping forum and inconsistency of sanctions. The proposed solution is a professional tribunal under a single national ethics regulator with comprehensive jurisdiction, transparent procedures, tiered sanctions, and client redress mechanisms, while maintaining organizational plurality. This model is expected to increase accountability and effectively protect clients legal interests.
null et al. (Tue,) studied this question.