Morocco’s legal system has been severely disrupted as a nationwide strike by attorneys enters its third week, halting many court proceedings and delaying a large number of criminal trials. The work stoppage has extended pretrial detention for many defendants and added further backlog to already crowded dockets. At the center of the dispute is Draft Law 66.23, a reform of the legal profession put forward by Justice Minister Abdellatif Ouahbi, which bar associations across the country say was developed without adequate consultation and contains provisions they view as harmful to the practice of law and to the right to defense.
Attorney groups oppose both legal and tax measures in the draft and are calling for structured talks with the government, a tax regime better adapted to the realities of legal work, stronger social protections, and clearer safeguards for defense rights. They accuse the ministry of using a top‑down, discriminatory approach that conflicts with earlier promises of a participatory process. While lawyers generally support the idea of updating the legal framework, they argue that any reform must be more balanced and transparent.
Several public bodies have also weighed in on the text. The Competition Council has recommended removing the current upper age limit of 45 years for entry into the legal profession under Draft Law 66.23, arguing that such a restriction is not justified in a competitive market. The council has also called for annual entrance examinations for the National Institute of Legal Training instead of a single exam held roughly every three years, and for a national cap on registration fees so that costs do not vary widely between local bars.
From the Justice Ministry’s perspective, Draft Law 66.23 is meant to update and expand Law 28.08, which has governed the legal profession since 2008. Officials acknowledge that, after more than 15 years in force, the existing law has revealed a number of gaps and practical shortcomings. They present the new bill as a more structured framework that clarifies access to the profession, professional status, and disciplinary procedures.
One major change in the bill is a more demanding pathway into legal practice. Draft Law 66.23 would require a master’s degree, success in a competitive entrance examination for the training institute, and completion of a formal, organized training and apprenticeship period. The text also creates a specific track for court registry employees who hold a master’s degree and have at least 15 years of service; they could qualify through a separate assessment, addressing a long‑standing demand that was not fully resolved under Law 28.08.
The draft introduces, for the first time, an official system of professional specialization. Attorneys would be able to obtain a “specialized lawyer” designation after completing additional training in defined practice areas. The bill also clarifies the legal framework for professional partnerships and civil law firms among lawyers, with the stated aim of offering more flexible organizational structures than those available today.
Mandatory continuing education is another key provision. While ongoing training has been discussed in the past, Law 28.08 did not make it compulsory. Draft Law 66.23 would require lawyers to participate in structured continuing legal education programs and, according to the ministry, would strengthen procedural safeguards in disciplinary matters by guaranteeing clearer rights of access to case files and to legal assistance during disciplinary proceedings.
For clients, the bill includes several measures intended to increase financial transparency and reduce disputes. It would require all client funds to be deposited into dedicated attorney escrow or trust accounts, subject to oversight by the Court of Accounts, a response to past problems involving mismanagement of client money. The draft also mandates written engagement agreements between lawyers and clients, with specific required information, and obliges lawyers to issue receipts for any payments received. In the event of a fee dispute, clients would have a defined mechanism to bring the matter before the bar president.
The proposed law further clarifies rules on legal aid and sets out stricter conflict‑of‑interest provisions, with the stated goal of providing stronger protections for individuals relying on court‑appointed or legal‑aid counsel. The Justice Ministry argues that the overall package of measures—covering electronic tools, specialization, and continuous training—represents a significant modernization of the profession and should improve public confidence in the legal system.
Despite these arguments, bar associations remain on strike and insist that the draft cannot move forward in its current form. The ministry continues to defend the bill and has not announced major changes, while lawyers signal they are prepared to maintain pressure until their demands for substantive revisions and a genuine negotiation process are addressed. In the meantime, judges have fewer cases to hear, and litigants face growing uncertainty about when their matters will return to the docket.
