Opening of Law Year 2026: Calls mount for structured legal education, training reforms

Senior figures in Guyana’s legal system have issued strong calls for the introduction of mandatory continuing legal education, structured training, and stronger professional regulation, warning that the absence of formal learning requirements is weakening the administration of justice.
The concerns were raised during the Opening of the Law Year 2026, where speakers from the Bar, the Judiciary, and the Executive agreed that meaningful reform of the justice system must include sustained investment in legal education and professional development.
President of the Guyana Bar Association, Kamal Ramkarran, pointed to the absence of any formal requirement for practising attorneys to update their legal knowledge after leaving law school.
“There is no system of continuing legal education in the Bar among lawyers,” Ramkarran said. “If a lawyer wanted never to read another law book or judgment after law school, it would be completely open for that lawyer to do so.”
He warned that without systems to ensure competence and accountability, professional standards could erode, ultimately affecting litigants and public confidence in the courts.
According to Ramkarran, education must be linked to accountability, noting, “systems must ensure that the highest professional standards are met by judges and lawyers and if not, consequences should flow.”
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall, SC, echoed those concerns, describing the regulatory framework governing the legal profession as outdated and largely unchanged since independence.
“We have not had changes of any fundamental nature in the legal profession, the way it functions, the framework within which it functions, and its rights and responsibilities since independence,” Nandlall said.
Drawing comparisons with other professions, he noted that the legal field has fallen behind in embracing structured learning.
“In the medical field, for example, you have strict regulations regarding continuing education… juxtaposed that against the legal profession and we have not made any changes of an appreciable nature in that regard.”
Nandlall argued that reform must begin with education, advocating for “a system of rigid and accountable continuing education” and a graduated induction into the profession to support young attorneys.
“It is unreasonable to expect a lawyer just emerging out of law school, being shouldered with that magnitude of responsibility, from the first day that he does his role,” he said.
He also stressed the importance of in-person court engagement as a learning tool, noting, “The amount of knowledge that I gathered on the corridors of the court alone can equal my learning of law in the law school.”
Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh welcomed the renewed consensus on education, noting that calls for continuing legal education had once faced resistance within the profession.
“I pause, particularly, to make special mention of both of them calling for continuing legal education,” Justice Singh said. “Continuing legal education is not for us. It is for all. It is for the judges and the lawyers, and it is for the litigant to enjoy proper representation.”
He stressed that competence and preparation are essential to upholding the rule of law. “The rule of law is not maintained by rhetoric, but by conduct,” he said.
Meanwhile, Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Madam Justice Roxane George, SC, outlined steps already being taken to strengthen judicial learning through the Judicial Education Institute, Guyana.
“Judicial education, staff training and wellness programs must be continuous,” the Chancellor said, noting that both local and overseas programmes are being utilised to enhance the knowledge and expertise of judicial officers and court staff.
She emphasised that education and training form a key pillar of the Judiciary’s Strategic Plan, aimed at improving efficiency, integrity, and public confidence in the justice system.
Together, the speakers agreed that modernising laws and court infrastructure will not be enough unless matched by sustained investment in education, training, and professional accountability within the legal profession.