Roll-up
Report of the 4th Congress
Maξtre Claude Chambonnaud, lawyer,
(
)
Two things largely justify the work of the congress and
throw it into relief:
- the first is
that the discussions were very instructive, bringing out the problems of
professionals throughout the world, and it is clear that we must take a global
approach to any problem from now on;
- the second is
that we all feel that the time has come for change; it is time to separate the
essence from the contingencies, keeping the essence, which characterises the
professions at a deep level, but perhaps adapting to a number of contingencies
and changes (
).
The Minister Renaud Dutreil
reminded us of that yesterday in talking about globalisation (
), we have all
had time to witness some major mutations:
The first is globalisation
(
) Whatever our
aspirations may be and however much we insist on principles (
) we know that it
is no longer possible to reason solely within a French, or even European,
framework. We are obliged to see the professions and professional practice on a
worldwide scale.
The second is the growing weight of financial concerns
(
) Firstly,
because financial concerns now dominate (
) But there has been a technical
development in our activities which has demanded a growing investment.
Computerisation is a case in point. (
)
The third is the greater complexity of human relations and
our professional practice. Increasingly, like it or not, we will have to specialise.
And we must not forget that we must remain humanists, for
whom general knowledge is a must.
Specialisation also usually means working in a group, which
inevitably affects our degree of independence, at least in terms of management.
That leads me to the restriction of individual choice, another aspect of
independence that was one of the major themes discussed yesterday. All
professions, to a greater or lesser extent, seem to be in the same position.
Choice is more restricted because people tend to contact a group, rather than a
particular person.
At the same time, the choice is no longer always made
directly, but often goes through associations or groupings. Choices are
increasingly made by institutional organisations and less and less often by
individuals, which is obviously also a threat to our independence.
The first theme was the professional secrecy. (
) Could anyone here doubt that
professional secrecy is essential? (
)
Whatever our views and principles, professional secrecy
cannot be absolute. If it is to be protected, it must be shared to some extent,
for ordinary practical reasons.
The work of this congress showed that, although we are
deeply attached to professional secrecy, we are perfectly well aware that it is
not, as is sometimes believed, invoked to protect our activity, but on the
contrary (
) solely to protect the personal freedom of those who call on our
services. (
) that it is the person who confides in us who benefits from
professional secrecy, and it is for him, in the interests of social and human
equilibrium, that we must cling firmly to this principle.
The second theme was free choice.
(
) Is it a basic
characteristic of professional practice?
(
)How is the choice made? On what criteria? (
)
Increasingly, as I said, client distribution services will make the choice for
the person concerned and this is not the least of the problems we will have to
face.
The third theme was liability, (
) Society is becoming more and more
anonymous; professionals (
) are precisely those who inject an element of
personal responsibility into a society in which responsibility is increasingly
diluted.
But that being so, we must be extremely vigilant and fight
for our rights. As you know, we did so back in
(
) Insurance law may well have an influence on changes in
liability and that would be a further reason for fighting to ensure that strict
liability is not brought in anywhere in the world, under any circumstances
and let us not confuse this issue with the rise of litigation.
(
) As long as liability is based on malpractice (even if
the courts interpret it rather broadly), that is acceptable. The courts may be
lax, but in any case, whenever a professional is held liable, there has been
malpractice. (
)
The last and most important issue was that of independence.
This is a truly
fundamental issue and it is perhaps time to look at its major aspects (
).
(
) is a doctor, lawyer, architect or whatever, who receives
80% of his turnover from the client distribution centre in his office still
wholly independent? (
)
And indeed, as soon as you work in a group, you become less
independent. Why is that? Because all groups need some hierarchy in the way the
work is organised and managed. That does not affect the technical aspects of
professional practice, but a few management obligations must be accepted, even
if they remain within the company or group. The same applies to the civil
service and to outside consultants.
So I think we must give further thought to the matter, in
order to separate activity and structure. Management and technical practice are
two different things, and that was the theme of our congress.
On this point, collaborator status, the professionals usual
status, provides an answer. I admit that I was delighted to hear the Minister
tell us yesterday that the status of professionals is under review.
(
)
The collaborator status became law in 1971. (
)
I said that it was a form of practice proper to the
professions, which (
) to strike a balance between work organisation and the
respect of freedom.
(
) when I see that professionals all over the world work as
employees, I say that we can no longer afford to reject the salaried
relationship: we must adapt it.
(
)
But let us not cling to the purely formal criteria
applicable to wage-earning. I find it awkward because, in French law at least,
it is characterised by a subordinate relationship. That is what we refuse we
do not want any technical subordination. But work must be organised within a
public service or a group and that must be accepted. (
)
That means that it is possible, firstly by law and secondly
by the will of those who practice this profession, to maintain independent
status, even if it has to be adapted to slightly different structures. (
)
That is perhaps a new direction we can work in, driven by
the determination to safeguard what characterises us, and among other things,
our code of ethics, because over the two-day congress there emerged a strong
conviction that the professions must be based on a code of ethics.
( ) This code of ethics must include: the absolute obligation to respect professional secrecy (everyone agrees with that); free choice (which is a little more controversial); and in any case, independence. It would be a good idea to make competence part of our ethical obligations that is one of the characteristics of the profession and to allow our orders, made up of our peers, to sanction us if we breach the duty of independence. I think that is an idea well worth pursuing.
I would like to wind up on an optimistic note. I have felt a
ripple of enthusiasm running round the audience these last two days, a determination
to protect the values we are deeply attached to.
(
)
This is the fight we all lead, this fight for other people,
for humanity. (
) .