Legal Profession’s Relationships

Legal profession’s relationships. In Romania, the relationships among the professional members of the legal system were too little analyzed. In the last years, institution’s democratization and free expression promotion revealed frustrations and tensions accumulated a long the way. Likewise, 23% of magistrates state that the relationships existent between judges and state attorneys affect the objectivity and the impartiality of courts decisions. If one analyzes the miss functioning and the way judges and managers cooperate in a Court room, as well as the relationships between the Ministry of Justice and magistrates, between the high Council of Magistrates and the Ministry of Justice, between the Council and magistrates, between the auxiliary personnel and magistrates, between magistrates and layers, between state attorneys and the judiciary police, and even between the theory creators and the practitioners, it can be easily stated that all laws, statutes and regulations of those professions should be improved.
Court’s independence and impartiality is strongly affected, as results from the collective imaginary, by the ambiguity surrounding the state attorney’s statute.
The confusion regarding the differentiation between the judiciary functions is nourished by the place of State Attorneys Offices near the Courts, by the direct contact between state attorneys and judges, by the wearing of the same robe both by the state attorney and by the judge, the physical location of the state attorney in the topography of courtrooms, the importance of the state attorney in Court’s decision mentioning, the privileged treatment of the state attorney where the files circuit is concerned, as well as the privileges in solution of certain files.
View that the Romanian state attorney’s statute is far from being established, and judicial functions separation is not clearly stated by Law, nor sufficiently warranted through adequate trial means, as long as procedures and customs contrary to laws or too near to the legal limit are kept in practice, the public perception will maintain the confusion between the roles of the judge and of the state attorney, all persons involved in a court trial having the right to question the judge’s impartiality.