Reading
Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Md Asaduzzaman recently announced an initiative to prevent people above the age of 35 from entering the legal profession. Speaking at an internship programme at the Supreme Court on October 13, he said steps were being taken to introduce the restriction.
There is an important distinction between a lawyer and an advocate. A lawyer is a law graduate who may work in legal research, teaching, or corporate legal affairs, but to practise in court, one must be an advocate after passing the bar exam. The minister's proposed age restriction appears to target this professional enrolment rather than legal education itself.
People over 35 could still study law, but may no longer qualify to enter courtroom practice as new advocates.
The announcement has divided the legal community. Some consider it a necessary reform to protect professional standards, while others argue that age should not determine someone's right to become an advocate.
The debate comes at a time when Bangladesh's judicial system is already under considerable pressure. As of March 31, 2026, more than 4.6 million cases were pending across the country's courts.
Does Bangladesh need more advocates, or better ones?
In reality, the country needs both. But simply increasing the number of advocates will not necessarily improve the speed or quality of justice. The competence of those entering the profession matters just as much as their numbers.
Why Restricting Entry Makes Sense
Unlike many other professions, legal practice offers opportunities for people to enter at different stages of life. Someone can pursue a law degree after completing an education in another discipline, changing careers or retiring from another occupation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Education should remain accessible regardless of age. However, the right to study law and the right to practise law are two different things.
Becoming an advocate means taking responsibility for people's rights, property, freedom and access to justice. Poor legal advice or an inability to handle a case properly can have serious consequences for clients.
For that reason, access to legal practice should be selective. A law degree alone should not automatically be treated as sufficient preparation for entering the profession.
Supporters of the proposed age restriction argue that it could discourage people from treating legal practice as an easy second-career option. It could also encourage aspiring lawyers to begin their professional development earlier and take the profession more seriously.
There is some merit in making entry into the legal profession more structured and selective. But an age limit can restrict who enters the profession, not guarantee that those who enter are competent.
Someone entering at 25 may be poorly trained, while another person entering at 40 may possess strong analytical skills, professional discipline, and relevant experience. Age alone cannot distinguish between the two.
The Bigger Problem Lies in Legal Education
One of the most important issues missing from much of this debate is the quality of legal education in Bangladesh.
Law is often taught as a subject that requires students to memorise legal provisions, reproduce definitions and write lengthy examination answers. Students spend years learning what different laws say, but may receive far less training in how to use those laws.
Yet legal practice is not primarily about memorising sections of legislation. Legal texts, judgments, and precedents can be consulted when preparing a case.
What matters is the ability to identify a legal problem, understand the relevant facts, research applicable laws, interpret judgments and build a convincing argument. These are skills that require practice, discussion, analysis and critical thinking.
In many legal education systems, students regularly work with case studies, research assignments, legal writing exercises, moot courts and problem-based assessments. Open-book examinations can also be used to test how students apply legal principles rather than how much information they can memorise.
Bangladesh needs greater emphasis on these approaches. An open-book examination is not necessarily easier. A well-designed question can require students to analyse a complex situation, identify competing legal arguments and explain which interpretation is more convincing. This approach is closer to the real-world courtroom system that students will face later in life.
The language of legal education is another challenge. Legal materials are often written and taught in dense, complicated language, making it difficult for students to understand the principles behind them. Instead of learning to explain legal concepts clearly, students can become accustomed to reproducing complicated terminology without fully understanding it.
Many graduates enter the profession with limited practical knowledge of drafting legal documents, researching cases, preparing arguments, or dealing with courtroom procedures. They eventually develop these skills through years of practice under senior lawyers.
Practical experience will always be important. But law schools should provide a much stronger foundation before graduates enter the profession.
The Two-Year LLB System Needs Serious Scrutiny
The debate over professional standards also brings attention to Bangladesh's two-year LLB programmes.
These programmes allow graduates from other disciplines to pursue a law qualification through a shorter academic route. They provide access to legal education for people who did not initially choose law as their undergraduate subject.
However, their role as a pathway into legal practice deserves careful examination.
In a 2017 judgment, the Supreme Court's Appellate Division restricted private universities from awarding LLB degrees without four years of legal education. The judgment also addressed the Bar Council's authority to regulate academic qualifications and professional eligibility.
Yet two-year LLB programmes have continued through National University-affiliated law colleges, creating questions about consistency in legal education standards.
If four years of structured legal education are considered necessary for students at private universities, the continued acceptance of shorter programmes elsewhere requires a clear academic and regulatory justification.
The problem is not necessarily that every graduate of a two-year programme is incompetent. Nor does completing a four-year degree automatically make someone a good lawyer.
The concern is whether these programmes provide sufficient academic depth, practical training, qualified teachers and adequate assessment before graduates become eligible for professional enrolment.
The Bar Council and education authorities should therefore review these programmes comprehensively. If they can meet rigorous professional standards, they should be subject to proper regulation and oversight. If they cannot, their recognition as a route into legal practice should be reconsidered.
The same standards should apply to all institutions, whether they are public universities, private universities or National University-affiliated colleges.
Reforming the Bar Council Examination and Professional Training
Improving university education is only one part of the solution. The process through which graduates qualify to practise law also needs attention.
The Bar Council examination should do more than assess whether candidates can recall legal provisions and familiar answers. It should test legal reasoning, research ability, application of law, professional ethics and the capacity to address practical legal problems.
Written assessments could include realistic case scenarios that require candidates to identify legal issues and develop arguments. Practical assessments could examine drafting, legal research and professional decision-making.
There should also be stronger supervision of the training that aspiring advocates receive before entering independent practice.
An effective professional training system could reduce the gap between academic study and courtroom experience. New lawyers should have opportunities to learn how to prepare petitions, work with evidence, conduct legal research, communicate with clients and maintain professional ethics.
The quality of law teachers, institutional facilities and academic oversight also needs attention.
If the government wants better advocates, it must improve the entire process through which they are educated, assessed and trained.
Age Limits Should Be Part of Reform, Not the Whole Reform
There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the age-limit debate.
Those opposing the restriction rightly point out that legal practice is an independent profession, not a government job with a fixed number of salaried positions. There is also no general mandatory retirement age for practising advocates. Preventing someone from entering at 36 while allowing another lawyer to continue practising into their 80s raises reasonable questions.
At the same time, professional licensing is not an unconditional entitlement. The Bar Council has a responsibility to protect professional standards and public confidence in the justice system.
The Supreme Court has also recognised the Council's authority to prescribe enrolment-age limits through appropriate rules.
The real question, therefore, is not simply whether an age limit can be imposed, but whether it is an effective and justified way to improve the profession.
A maximum entry age of 35 may narrow the applicant pool and discourage some forms of casual or late-career entry. But it would be a mistake to assume that such a restriction would automatically produce more capable lawyers.
Bangladesh already has a serious judicial backlog. What it needs is neither an unrestricted expansion of the legal profession nor a system that measures professional competence primarily by age.
It needs a more selective and credible pathway into legal practice, where applicants are assessed on their ability to perform the responsibilities expected of an advocate.
The goal should not simply be to prevent people from becoming advocates after 35. It should be to ensure that everyone who becomes an advocate, regardless of when they qualify, is genuinely prepared to practise law.