About the National Council for Legal Advisers

The legal advisers' self-government was established in 1982, however, the nature of the self-government as well as the powers and tasks facing the legal advisers have undergone a significant transformation since then.

The changes in the political system that were commenced in 1989 resulted in the need to amend the act on legal advisers from 1982.

The market-based economy led to a new huge qualitative need for broadly understood services of legal advisers and resulted in the expansion of their competencies.

During the 4^th term of office the Parliament adopted the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, whose Article 17 par. 1 provides for guarantees for self-governments representing professions of public trust and exercising supervision over the correct execution of those professions within the boundaries of public interest and for protection thereof.

The Act on legal advisers of 1982, after seven years of legislative work carried out by Parliaments during subsequent terms of office, underwent fundamental and thorough changes. The changes made in the area of powers of attorney to represent clients in civil law cases expanded the competencies of the legal advisers so that they could act as authorized agents of not only business entities but also of natural persons not pursuing any business activity.

On 22 May 1997 the Parliament adopted a huge amendment to the act on legal advisers.

The National Council for Legal Advisers was continuously taking steps to expand the statutory scope of the profession. It put forward appropriate suggestions or petitions in the law creation process and objected to frequent limitations of that scope. This was a continuation of the efforts undertaken by the self-government of legal advisers after the act on legal advisers underwent a huge change in 1997. These efforts led to the current state of affairs where the scopes of the profession being pursued by the legal advisers and barristers fully overlap, except for defence in criminal cases and penal fiscal cases. It should be mentioned here that such activities have almost always been contested by the bar.

A fundamental expansion of the scope of the profession was adopted in the amendment to the act on legal advisers in May 2005, which changed Article 4 and deleted par. 2 in Article 8. In effect, the self-government of the legal advisers gained access to family and guardianship cases, and limitations in providing legal assistance to natural persons not being entrepreneurs were eliminated. The scope of our appearance as authorized agents in penal procedures was also expanded. Because many courts required that the legal advisers submit already groundless declarations of not remaining in an employment relationship, we took measures to delete Article 89 § 3 from the Code of civil procedure and Article 37 § from the Act on proceedings before administrative courts. Repeated petitions to the Minister of Justice and to the chairpersons of competent Parliamentary committees made it possible to delete those regulations.

However, § 2 and § 3 in Article 88 of the Code of penal procedure was not deleted, which was a clear consequence of the change in Article 4 of our act. Our stance that in this collision of the laws priority should be given to the act on the profession, defining the scope of its execution, was not seconded by the Supreme Court, which, in the resolution of "seven", stated that in this case the limitations ensuing from the code of penal procedure have priority (the same problem was resolved differently by the Supreme Court in 19

Information about the National Council for Legal Advisers

The legal advisers' self-government was established in 1982, however, the nature of the self-government as well as the powers and tasks facing the legal advisers have undergone a significant transformation since then.

The changes in the political system that were commenced in 1989 resulted in the need to amend the act on legal advisers from 1982.

The market-based economy led to a new huge qualitative need for broadly understood services of legal advisers and resulted in the expansion of their competencies.

During the 4^th term of office the Parliament adopted the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, whose Article 17 par. 1 provides for guarantees for self-governments representing professions of public trust and exercising supervision over the correct execution of those professions within the boundaries of public interest and for protection thereof.

The Act on legal advisers of 1982, after seven years of legislative work carried out by Parliaments during subsequent terms of office, underwent fundamental and thorough changes. The changes made in the area of powers of attorney to represent clients in civil law cases expanded the competencies of the legal advisers so that they could act as authorized agents of not only business entities but also of natural persons not pursuing any business activity.

On 22 May 1997 the Parliament adopted a huge amendment to the act on legal advisers.

The National Council for Legal Advisers was continuously taking steps to expand the statutory scope of the profession. It put forward appropriate suggestions or petitions in the law creation process and objected to frequent limitations of that scope. This was a continuation of the efforts undertaken by the self-government of legal advisers after the act on legal advisers underwent a huge change in 1997. These efforts led to the current state of affairs where the scopes of the profession being pursued by the legal advisers and barristers fully overlap, except for defence in criminal cases and penal fiscal cases. It should be mentioned here that such activities have almost always been contested by the bar.

A fundamental expansion of the scope of the profession was adopted in the amendment to the act on legal advisers in May 2005, which changed Article 4 and deleted par. 2 in Article 8. In effect, the self-government of the legal advisers gained access to family and guardianship cases, and limitations in providing legal assistance to natural persons not being entrepreneurs were eliminated. The scope of our appearance as authorized agents in penal procedures was also expanded. Because many courts required that the legal advisers submit already groundless declarations of not remaining in an employment relationship, we took measures to delete Article 89 § 3 from the Code of civil procedure and Article 37 § from the Act on proceedings before administrative courts. Repeated petitions to the Minister of Justice and to the chairpersons of competent Parliamentary committees made it possible to delete those regulations.

However, § 2 and § 3 in Article 88 of the Code of penal procedure was not deleted, which was a clear consequence of the change in Article 4 of our act. Our stance that in this collision of the laws priority should be given to the act on the profession, defining the scope of its execution, was not seconded by the Supreme Court, which, in the resolution of "seven", stated that in this case the limitations ensuing from the code of penal procedure have priority (the same problem was resolved differently by the Supreme Court in 1997 with respect to the code of civil procedure). After that resolution we made several attempts to get the above entry deleted, but to no avail. In this regard we received support of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, which argued that expansion of the scope of powers of legal advisers in penal proceedings fosters access to legal assistance. 

A legal adviser can, on equal terms with the barrister, act as:
- an authorized agent in proceedings before the Parliamentary investigation committee (act of 2005);
- a counsel for the defence in proceedings concerning violation of the budgetary discipline (act of 2005);

- still a counsel for the defence in proceedings concerning liability of collective entities. The government's draft amendment to the act deprived us of those powers, and our petition resulted in the abandonment of that limitation. Our efforts also led to the deletion of an unfavourable provision in the draft on the liability of the entrepreneur (including of the legal adviser), which directly acted with the accused collective entity;

- counsel for the defence in cases concerning fiscal offences (act of 2005). Here again we petitioned for the expansion of the compulsory representation by a lawyer to resume proceedings;

Members of the National Council for Legal Advisers:

NCLA President 

Bobrowicz Maciej

DCLA Białystok

1. Ewa Arcisz
2. Dariusz Matuk
3. Bazyli Zacharczuk

DCLA Bydgoszcz

1. Jacek Marczak
2. Jerzy Mojsiewicz

DCLA Gdańsk

1. Ewa Jezierewska
2. Zbigniew Szychowski
3. Maria Ślązak

DCLA Katowice

1. Piotr Bober
2. Ryszard Ostrowski
3. Marek Wojewoda
4. Anna Zaleska

DCLA Kielce

1. Wojciech Chłopek
2. Grażyna Grzmil

DCLA Koszalin

1. Bolesław Chylak
2. Krzysztof Wojdygowski

DCLA Kraków

1. Wiesław Hudyma
2. Danuta Koszyk-Ciałowicz
3. Anna Sobczak

DCLA Lublin

1. Sławomir Bartnik
2. Marek Mazur
3. Teresa Stecyk

DCLA Łódź

1. Andrzej Domański
2. Mieczysław Humka
3. Ewa Stompor-Nowicka

DCLA Olsztyn

1. Iwona Bendorf-Bundorf
2. Michał Korwek

DCLA Opole

1. Zygmunt Baranowski
2. Dariusz Sałajewski

DCLA Poznań

1. Krystyna Babiak
2. Grażyna Błociszewska-Jankowska
3. Krzysztof Kola
4. Zbigniew Tur

DCLA Rzeszów

1. Piotr Kamiński
2. Lech Marek Skierczyński

DCLA Szczecin

1. Andrzej Lubiniecki
2. Kinga Przybylska-Charif

DCLA Toruń

1. Wiesław Radomski
2. Ryszard Wilmanowicz

DCLA Wałbrzych

1. Aleksandra Siewicka
2. Małgorzata Walaszczyk-Borek

DCLA Warsaw

1. Romuald Chełmiński
2. Włodzimierz Chróścik
3. Przemysław Kozdój
4. Katarzyna Kudlak
5. Magdalena Łempicka
6. Albert Stawiszyński
7. Tomasz Majorowicz

DCLA Wrocław

1. Helena Dobrosz
2. Barbara Kras
3. Jan Łoziński

DCLA Zielona Góra

1. Sebastian Leś
2. Elwira Szurmińska-Kamińska

97 with respect to the code of civil procedure). After that resolution we made several attempts to get the above entry deleted, but to no avail. In this regard we received support of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights, which argued that expansion of the scope of powers of legal advisers in penal proceedings fosters access to legal assistance. 

A legal adviser can, on equal terms with the barrister, act as:
- an authorized agent in proceedings before the Parliamentary investigation committee (act of 2005);
- a counsel for the defence in proceedings concerning violation of the budgetary discipline (act of 2005);

- still a counsel for the defence in proceedings concerning liability of collective entities. The government's draft amendment to the act deprived us of those powers, and our petition resulted in the abandonment of that limitation. Our efforts also led to the deletion of an unfavourable provision in the draft on the liability of the entrepreneur (including of the legal adviser), which directly acted with the accused collective entity;

- counsel for the defence in cases concerning fiscal offences (act of 2005). Here again we petitioned for the expansion of the compulsory representation by a lawyer to resume proceedings;

Members of the National Council for Legal Advisers:

NCLA President 

Bobrowicz Maciej

DCLA Białystok

1. Ewa Arcisz
2. Dariusz Matuk
3. Bazyli Zacharczuk

DCLA Bydgoszcz

1. Jacek Marczak
2. Jerzy Mojsiewicz

DCLA Gdańsk

1. Ewa Jezierewska
2. Zbigniew Szychowski
3. Maria Ślązak

DCLA Katowice

1. Piotr Bober
2. Ryszard Ostrowski
3. Marek Wojewoda
4. Anna Zaleska

DCLA Kielce

1. Wojciech Chłopek
2. Grażyna Grzmil

DCLA Koszalin

1. Bolesław Chylak
2. Krzysztof Wojdygowski

DCLA Kraków

1. Wiesław Hudyma
2. Danuta Koszyk-Ciałowicz
3. Anna Sobczak

DCLA Lublin

1. Sławomir Bartnik
2. Marek Mazur
3. Teresa Stecyk

DCLA Łódź

1. Andrzej Domański
2. Mieczysław Humka
3. Ewa Stompor-Nowicka

DCLA Olsztyn

1. Iwona Bendorf-Bundorf
2. Michał Korwek

DCLA Opole

1. Zygmunt Baranowski
2. Dariusz Sałajewski

DCLA Poznań

1. Krystyna Babiak
2. Grażyna Błociszewska-Jankowska
3. Krzysztof Kola
4. Zbigniew Tur

DCLA Rzeszów

1. Piotr Kamiński
2. Lech Marek Skierczyński

DCLA Szczecin

1. Andrzej Lubiniecki
2. Kinga Przybylska-Charif

DCLA Toruń

1. Wiesław Radomski
2. Ryszard Wilmanowicz

DCLA Wałbrzych

1. Aleksandra Siewicka
2. Małgorzata Walaszczyk-Borek

DCLA Warsaw

1. Romuald Chełmiński
2. Włodzimierz Chróścik
3. Przemysław Kozdój
4. Katarzyna Kudlak
5. Magdalena Łempicka
6. Albert Stawiszyński
7. Tomasz Majorowicz

DCLA Wrocław

1. Helena Dobrosz
2. Barbara Kras
3. Jan Łoziński

DCLA Zielona Góra

1. Sebastian Leś
2. Elwira Szurmińska-Kamińska