The provision expressed in § 36 of the Bar Association Ethics and Dignity of the Profession Code, which requires attorneys to have any misunderstandings between them resolved first by the competent Bar authorities and then by a permanent arbitration court at the Supreme Bar Council or an arbitration court with the exclusive participation of attorneys, and imposes an obligation to introduce an arbitration clause in contracts of companies with the participation of attorneys, was introduced into the Bar Association Ethics and Dignity of the Profession Code in its current wording already 11 years ago – 19 pf November 2011, it nevertheless continues to stir controversy among commentators. The provision has met with numerous criticisms, which so far have not been taken into account by the bar’s resolution bodies and have not led to a possible change in the wording of the provision.
This article focuses around several criticisms of the provision in question, which may provide an impetus for the bar’s bodies to amend the provision in question and take into account the de lege ferenda proposals postulated in the doctrine.