Andorran Bar Association Warns of Collapse in Voluntary Legal Duty Rotas

The Andorran Bar Association (CADA) has warned lawyers that the voluntary system for legal duty rotas—especially civil and administrative shifts—is on the brink of collapse due to ongoing withdrawals and insufficient new volunteers, potentially forcing a return to mandatory participation.

In an email sent to members yesterday afternoon, the board highlighted the "unsustainable" state of penal guard duties (TOPG) and particularly civil and administrative rotas (TOCA). Penal shifts retain coverage with around 40 enrolled lawyers, but civil and administrative rotas have fallen below 30 participants—a threshold strained further by rising caseloads. The board cautioned that without a substantial increase in sign-ups, it would convert the system to compulsory for all members, a step it wishes to avoid to ensure citizens' right to effective legal aid.

The appeal urges lawyers with at least two years of bar membership to demonstrate "professional responsibility and commitment" by volunteering, especially for civil duties, expressing hope that collective effort will bolster the service.

Lawyers cited multiple disincentives driving the exodus. Civil cases often involve prolonged proceedings, such as matrimonial disputes, while penal duties carry risks like uncompensated work followed by frivolous complaints—one high-profile case with a defendant has notably discouraged participation. Some lawyers faced disciplinary action for shouldering excessive shifts meant for others, fueling resentment toward the board's management. Duty work disrupts paying client matters, yields little recognition or pay, and coincides with growing demand from Andorra's expanding population and more economic disputes eligible for legal aid.

The voluntary model replaced a prior mandatory one after complaints that it overburdened junior lawyers. Sources now view compulsion as likely for civil and administrative rotas, given low expectations for volunteer upticks. A faction of lawyers criticizes the board for insufficient advocacy on improvements, including better compensation, stronger court relations, and firmer protections against client and authority mistreatment.