Abstract: The lawyers' profession is central to the story of modern nation-building in Egypt. At the turn of the 20th century, lawyers fought for modernizing reforms, championed liberalism in government, and instigated a national fight for independence against British colonial rule. In the independent nation, they championed equality, democracy, and rule of law, and filled cabinet and parliamentary positions. The law school was the grooming field for statespersons and opposition leaders alike, and the Lawyers' Syndicate (professional association) was a force to be reckoned with. When President Nasser sought to centralize power in the executive in the 1950s, he was met with fierce resistance from the Lawyers' Syndicate. Sixty years later, the Lawyers' Syndicate has lost its power and privilege. Consecutive rulers have attacked the lawyers' association, challenging its independence, power, and leadership. This paper investigates the undermining of the lawyers' professional association as part of the project of entrenching autocratic rule, and its effects on lawyers' ability to assist or resist autocratic capture. Drawing on archival material and interviews with lawyers and judges in Egypt conducted between 2019 and 2022, I illustrate the ways that lawyers challenge the autocratic project both inside and outside of the courtroom. Networks of lawyers defending pro-democracy actors, challenging illiberal laws and policies, and organizing against repressive practices such as evictions and corruption are all examples of significant activism by lawyers inspired by the history and shared vision of their profession and its role in society. In fact, the weakening of the lawyers' association has ultimately granted lawyers more independence and curtailed the executive's ability to control the profession from above. As the executive managed to control the judges and their association, it lost all control over the lawyers, their ideologies, and their actions. In turn, lawyers without an active association are vulnerable to state repression. They must depend on each other for protection and safety when the autocratic and repressive state seeks to discipline and punish them through criminal charges and imprisonment.
Heba M Khalil (Wed,) studied this question.