[RECOMMENDATION BY RESOLUTION - VOTED] East Pacific Attorney Office

[spoiler]
Recommendation On The Establishment Of A Public Attorney Office

Whereas, the Concordat guarantees the “right of representation by adequate counsel” in a trial before the Conclave in Article F, Section 2,
And whereas, the term “adequate counsel” is not once defined,
And whereas, there is no elaboration describing whether this is only upon request or always applicable,
Supposing, therefore, the East Pacific would be served by a more extensive definition of this right,
And therefore, the right being better defined, the East Pacific would also be served by action taken to better support this right,
And citing, the recent case of TEP v. Fedele, where an Arbiter of the Conclave served as the legal representation of the defendant,
And acknowledging, that the Viceroy of the Conclave has authority to “oversee the proceedings of the Conclave”
It is recommended to the government of the East Pacific, that:

Article I: Definition

1. “Adequate counsel” be defined as:
…1.A Competent and qualified legal advice or representation in a trial before the Conclave

Article II: Establishment

1. The Viceroy shall appoint several Attorneys from the Citizenry of the East Pacific, subject to the below regulations:
…1.A Arbiters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to prevent confusion over the question of Arbiter votes on final decisions;
…1.B Magisters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible legislative interference;
…1.C The Delegate shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible Executive interference;
…1.D All appointed Attorneys must be able to pass a basic test on East Pacifican law, including questions on the Concordat, formulated by the Conclave;
2. The Attorneys shall collectively be known as the “East Pacific Attorney Office,” hereafter “EPAO”;
…2.A EPAO shall be the sole government source of legal counsel in trials before the Conclave;
…2.B EPAO will be administrated and regulated according to the discretion of the Viceroy, subject to the below regulation:
…2.B.a There may be no fewer than three (3) Attorneys in EPAO at any time, if reasonably possible;
…2.C The Presiding Arbiter of a trial shall assign to the Defendant an Attorney if one is requested, or if the Presiding Arbiter believes it would be beneficial to justice;

Article III: Duties and Responsibilities

1. Duties of the Client to the Attorney
…1.A The Citizen being represented by the Attorney, hereafter referred to as “the Client,” has several duties to the Attorney representing them:
…1.A.a To give, as plainly as possible, the facts of the case as best one knows them;
…1.A.b To remain honest, and not to lie to the Attorney with regards to one’s own part in the case or to others’;
…1.A.c To inform the Attorney of one’s intentions with regards to pleas, evidence, etc.;
…1.A.d To refrain from asking the Attorney to act illegally, or to act against professional ethics;
…1.A.e To be prompt in communications with the Attorney, and to respond likewise promptly if presence is requested in the trial itself;
…1.B If the Client fails in these duties, the Attorney representing them may appeal to the Presiding Arbiter of the trial to leave the service of the Client;
…1.B.a The Presiding Arbiter may grant this request, in which case the Attorney will no longer be required to represent the Client;
…1.B.a.1 If the Presiding Arbiter grants the request of absolvement of responsibility, the Attorney is still bound by professional ethics;
…1.B.a.2 If the Presiding Arbiter grants the request, another Attorney shall be assigned to the Client by the Presiding Arbiter;
…1.B.b The Presiding Arbiter may deny this request, in which case the Attorney will still be required to represent the Client;
2. Duties of the Attorney to the Client
…2.A The Attorney representing the Client has several duties to the Client they represent:
…2.A.a To give, as plainly as possible, the charges leveled against the Client and the developments in the case against them;
…2.A.b To remain honest, and not to lie to the Client with regards to charges, developments in the case, etc.;
…2.A.c To abide by the decisions of the Client with regards to pleas, objections, etc.;
…2.A.d To refrain from asking the Client to act illegally, or to aid the Client in the same;
…2.A.e To be prompt in communications with the Client, and to respond likewise promptly if presence is requested in the trial itself;
…2.A.f To adhere, in all cases and with no exceptions, to the professional ethics below outlined;
…2.B If the Attorney fails in these duties, the Client being represented may appeal to the Presiding Arbiter for a different Attorney or to represent themselves;
…2.B.a The Presiding Arbiter may grant this request, in which case the Attorney will no longer be required to represent the Client;
…2.B.a.1 If the Presiding Arbiter grants the request, the Attorney is still bound by professional ethics;
…2.B.a.2 If the Presiding Arbiter grants the request, another Attorney shall be assigned to the Client by the Presiding Arbiter or the Client will represent themselves;
…2.B.b The Presiding Arbiter may deny this request, in which case the Attorney will still be required to represent the Client;

Article IV: Professional Ethics

1. Attorneys shall be subject to the below code of ethics, in order that they may maintain justice and best represent their Clients;
…1.A To maintain Client-Attorney Confidentiality, that is, that no information given in confidence by the Client to the Attorney may be revealed without the former’s explicit consent;
…1.B To avoid conflicts of interest; for example, no Attorney may represent a Client in the same case in which they act for the Prosecution;
…1.C To be of unimpeachable conduct, that is, that no Attorney shall commit a crime;
…1.D To inform the Client of all legal consequences of any information the latter shall seek to be made public;
…1.E Not to neglect an assigned case;
…1.F Not to knowingly use perjured testimony or falsified evidence;
…1.G Not to act illegally upon the Client’s request;
…1.H Not to knowingly assert false statements of law or fact;
…1.I To inform the Presiding Arbiter of further illegal actions by the Client, except where such revelation is prohibited by Client-Attorney Confidentiality;
2. Attorneys that fail to uphold professional ethics shall be held accountable, as below;
…2.A For the first offense, the Attorney will be issued a formal reprimand by the Viceroy;
…2.B For the second offense, the Attorney will be issued a second formal reprimand by the Viceroy and removed from the case by the Presiding Arbiter;
…2.C For the third offense, the Attorney will be issued a third formal reprimand by the Viceroy, removed from the case by the Presiding Arbiter, and stripped of their position and disbarred;
…2.C.a The Attorney shall be prohibited from returning to EPAO for a period of not less than three months;
…2.C.b Following the period of prohibition, if the Attorney wishes to return to EPAO, they shall retake the test outlined above in Article II;

Article V: Removal

  1. Attorneys may be removed from duty by a unanimous vote of the Conclave
    …1.A Any Arbiter may initiate such a vote
    [/spoiler]
    I have come to the conclusion, upon becoming an Arbiter and having served as representation in a trial, that the East would be served by a qualified attorney service. My document includes reference to a “basic test on East Pacifican law.” Below is a relevant draft of such a test’s key.
    [spoiler]Standardized Test of Attorney Acceptability and Responsibility Key
    This test is meant as a record of your suitability for the position of attorney-at-law. Memorization of the answers is not the goal; what matters is that you are able to quickly find and formulate the answers to legal questions. You may therefore look up the answers during the test.

  2. What is the maximum penalty for treason? Life ban.

  3. How is High Treason different from Treason? High Treason is far more specific and does not include all unlawful acts for the purpose of overthrowing the Concordat. This answer may vary. Discretion of the test giver in awarding answers.

  4. Suppose Alice has two friends, Bob and Carol. She knows that her friends are planning to coup the East Pacifican government. If she were not to speak up, what crime can she be charged with? Omitting to Prevent Treason.

  5. Under what circumstances is Sedition a valid charge? When the defendant seriously advocates, in speech or text, an unlawful overthrow of the legitimate government of the East.

  6. What part of the Standing Orders of the Conclave governs trial procedure? Give a short overview of the procedure. They only need to cite SOC 2.3.1; The general outline is sufficient, as long as they prove they understand the basics.

  7. Suppose a citizen is tried for Omitting to Prevent Treason, but is found innocent. Three weeks later, further evidence is found that the said citizen was in fact guilty of the charge. Can the citizen be tried again? No; or at least, not for the same charge. Either answer is acceptable. Bonus points if the test-taker cites Article F Section 4 explicitly.

  8. What, according to the Criminal Code/Dictum de hoc Malefactum, is an “indictable” offense? An offense which may not be enforced by the East until it is proven before the Conclave that the accused is guilty.

  9. What is an advisory question? When a member of the East Pacific asks the Conclave, unofficially, of the legality of something.

  10. Can an attorney violate Client-Attorney Confidentiality to expose treason or conspiracy to commit such? Why or why not? Yes; failing to reveal this information would be Omitting to Commit Treason, which is of greater importance than Client-Attorney Confidentiality.

  11. What article of the Concordat deals with the rights of citizens? Article F.

  12. How many days before pre-trial does the Viceroy have to send evidence to parties involved in a criminal trial? 48 hours/2 days

  13. What is the law that regulates the executive structure of the East Pacific? The Curia Act

  14. Directly quote one responsibility of the Chief Officer of Justice, as per the law that regulates and forms the Chief Officer’s position. Investigate and prosecute any criminal act or offense under the law of the East Pacific; OR Represent the general interest of the Citizens of the region of the East Pacific in all proceedings brought before the Conclave; OR Take any initiative before the Conclave, including judicial review and proceedings for advisory opinions, to safeguard and enhance the coherency and quality of the law of the East Pacific.

  15. Name the current Viceroy and Arbiters of the Conclave. Viceroy: Zukchiva

  16. Arbiters: Pakitsk, Wallenburg, and Asendavia

  17. What is an illegal action per the Regional Message Board Regulation Act, 2013? Advertising on the RMB.

  18. Can an attorney be a witness for the Prosecution in the same case they are appearing in for the Defense? No; this would be a violation of professional ethics.

  19. If the attorney unknowingly uses falsified evidence, then learns of the evidence’s unsuitability, what is the proper course of action? To withdraw the evidence with an acknowledgement of the inauthenticity of the evidence.

  20. If the Client wishes to reveal information to the public, what is the duty of the Attorney representing them? To inform the Client of all legal repercussions and, if they still wish to continue, to reveal the information in the course of the trial.

  21. Is it permissible for an Attorney to act against professional ethics upon the Client’s explicit request? No; the Attorney must in all cases adhere to professional ethics.

[/spoiler]
Comments would be greatly appreciated.

A quick read of this draft reveals to me that I like it’s content a lot. We could do with professional attorneys. Also, this would be a resolution as a small fyi.

However, one thing I dislike a lot is section 2.A, listing that attorneys through the EPAO are the only types of legal representation available.

I understand that this resolution, if adopted by the Conclave, is meant to give defendants the right to a professional and prepared service best suited to handle their cases. But imo, this should be left up to the defendant to choose if they wish to take on the EPAO or not.

Now, would we enforce the code of ethics on non-attorneys? My opinion would be a no. I believe, if done correctly, the EPAO could develop a reputation for professionalism based upon these ethics, and thus leave it up to the defendant to decide if they want a Conclave-approved, prepared attorney or their friend to fight for them. This right shouldn’t be taken away from the defendant.

Another issue is that this law seems geared towards defendants. However, plaintiffs and sometimes prosecution needs an attorney as well. Could this be changed to address this? Especially if we’re gonna keep the “attorneys are the only legal counsel” thing, which I’m still against but yeah. Then it leaves plaintiffs/prosecution no avenues for representation and becomes more unfair.

— Begin quote from ____

A quick read of this draft reveals to me that I like it’s content a lot. We could do with professional attorneys. Also, this would be a resolution as a small fyi.

However, one thing I dislike a lot is section 2.A, listing that attorneys through the EPAO are the only types of legal representation available.

I understand that this resolution, if adopted by the Conclave, is meant to give defendants the right to a professional and prepared service best suited to handle their cases. But imo, this should be left up to the defendant to choose if they wish to take on the EPAO or not.

Now, would we enforce the code of ethics on non-attorneys? My opinion would be a no. I believe, if done correctly, the EPAO could develop a reputation for professionalism based upon these ethics, and thus leave it up to the defendant to decide if they want a Conclave-approved, prepared attorney or their friend to fight for them. This right shouldn’t be taken away from the defendant.

Another issue is that this law seems geared towards defendants. However, plaintiffs and sometimes prosecution needs an attorney as well. Could this be changed to address this? Especially if we’re gonna keep the “attorneys are the only legal counsel” thing, which I’m still against but yeah. Then it leaves plaintiffs/prosecution no avenues for representation and becomes more unfair.

— End quote

Re: 2.A, the section has been rewritten to say “the sole government source of legal counsel.” This is to prevent any parallel department or office rising and ending up in some conflict, unlikely as that is. This way, the question of asking private citizens to represent a Client is left ambiguous and therefore fine.

I’ll leave the point of adding a section or something about Prosecuting Attorneys to when I have somewhat more time.

What is the purpose? Is this a recommendation from the Conclave to the Magisterium, a proposal for a resolution by the Magisterium, or a proposal for a law?

— Begin quote from ____

What is the purpose? Is this a recommendation from the Conclave to the Magisterium, a proposal for a resolution by the Magisterium, or a proposal for a law?

— End quote

This is a proposal for a resolution, made in my capacity as a private citizen. The specifics, of course, may be altered as to make it appropriate for a resolution.

This does seem like a good idea.
However, I do think three chances with the code of ethics is a bit much. An attorney is a position of trust. Breaches in trust must be followed by loss of trust. Perhaps reducing the number of offences required to be stripped of the position to two.
Also, in some cases, I believe that an attorney should be stripped of his position if he is the defendant in a trial immediately instead of having a second/third chance, as well as liable to charges when dismissed for a breach of the code of ethics, depending on which part they breached.

Would it be solely this test that appoints an Attorney, or would it be in charge of the Delegate, the Magisterium, and/or the Conclave, provided they got all the answers correct?

It is not unknown that I have supported this resolution since before the first draft, and I still stand by it.

As for Zukchiva’s remark on Prosecuting Attorneys, I suppose it could work but I was under the impression that the Prosecutors are already well versed in the law to the point where having an Attorney would be redundant. Additionally, if we add this, having three attorneys might not be enough.

As for Algerstonia’s question, I do not speak for Pakitsk but I was under the impression that Conclave chooses them based on how well they did during the exam. This may not be the case, however, and might be an inaccurate assumption, so do not take my word for it.

— Begin quote from ____

It is not unknown that I have supported this resolution since before the first draft, and I still stand by it.

As for Bachtendekuppen’s remark on Prosecuting Attorneys, I suppose it could work but I was under the impression that the Prosecutors are already well versed in the law to the point where having an Attorney would be redundant. Additionally, if we add this, having three attorneys might not be enough.

As for Algerstonia’s question, I do not speak for Pakitsk but I was under the impression that Conclave chooses them based on how well they did during the exam. This may not be the case, however, and might be an inaccurate assumption, so do not take my word for it.

— End quote

I think you mean Zukchiva.

— Begin quote from ____

This does seem like a good idea.
However, I do think three chances with the code of ethics is a bit much. An attorney is a position of trust. Breaches in trust must be followed by loss of trust. Perhaps reducing the number of offences required to be stripped of the position to two.
Also, in some cases, I believe that an attorney should be stripped of his position if he is the defendant in a trial immediately instead of having a second/third chance, as well as liable to charges when dismissed for a breach of the code of ethics, depending on which part they breached.

— End quote

I’m generally a fan of being lenient, and three is a nice number. Just big enough to give the feeling that people are trusted, just small enough to constantly remind people of the consequences of abusing that trust.

— Begin quote from ____

Would it be solely this test that appoints an Attorney, or would it be in charge of the Delegate, the Magisterium, and/or the Conclave, provided they got all the answers correct?

— End quote

The Viceroy appoints Attorneys, as outlined in Article II, Section 1:

— Begin quote from ____

1. The Viceroy shall appoint several Attorneys from the Citizenry of the East Pacific, subject to the below regulations:
…1.A Arbiters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to prevent confusion over the question of Arbiter votes on final decisions;
…1.B Magisters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible legislative interference;
…1.C The Delegate shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible Executive interference;
…1.D All appointed Attorneys must be able to pass a basic test on East Pacifican law, including questions on the Concordat, formulated by the Conclave;

— End quote

It’s strictly at their discretion, but now that I look at it, nothing here stops a Viceroy from denying the bar to anyone for political reasons, even though they passed the test, or from appointing someone hopelessly incompetent at law for much the same reason. Maybe the test results ought to be shown to the rest of the Arbiters, who would then vote on it.

— Begin quote from ____

I’m generally a fan of being lenient, and three is a nice number. Just big enough to give the feeling that people are trusted, just small enough to constantly remind people of the consequences of abusing that trust.

— End quote

You do have a point, three is an ok number. However, I think that being a defendant in a trial while being an attorney is inexcusable, and should be in a class of its own when it comes to ethical breaches, making it an immediate dismissal.

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

It is not unknown that I have supported this resolution since before the first draft, and I still stand by it.

As for Bachtendekuppen’s remark on Prosecuting Attorneys, I suppose it could work but I was under the impression that the Prosecutors are already well versed in the law to the point where having an Attorney would be redundant. Additionally, if we add this, having three attorneys might not be enough.

As for Algerstonia’s question, I do not speak for Pakitsk but I was under the impression that Conclave chooses them based on how well they did during the exam. This may not be the case, however, and might be an inaccurate assumption, so do not take my word for it.

— End quote

I think you mean Zukchiva.

— End quote

I do. That has been fixed.

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I’m generally a fan of being lenient, and three is a nice number. Just big enough to give the feeling that people are trusted, just small enough to constantly remind people of the consequences of abusing that trust.

— End quote

You do have a point, three is an ok number. However, I think that being a defendant in a trial while being an attorney is inexcusable, and should be in a class of its own when it comes to ethical breaches, making it an immediate dismissal.

— End quote

Dismissal seems harsh. I would suggest suspension. If the trial concludes guilty, then dismissal should be considered.

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

I’m generally a fan of being lenient, and three is a nice number. Just big enough to give the feeling that people are trusted, just small enough to constantly remind people of the consequences of abusing that trust.

— End quote

— End quote

You do have a point, three is an ok number. However, I think that being a defendant in a trial while being an attorney is inexcusable, and should be in a class of its own when it comes to ethical breaches, making it an immediate dismissal.

Dismissal seems harsh. I would suggest suspension. If the trial concludes guilty, then dismissal should be considered.

— End quote

Sounds good to me.

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Would it be solely this test that appoints an Attorney, or would it be in charge of the Delegate, the Magisterium, and/or the Conclave, provided they got all the answers correct?

— End quote

The Viceroy appoints Attorneys, as outlined in Article II, Section 1:

— Begin quote from ____

1. The Viceroy shall appoint several Attorneys from the Citizenry of the East Pacific, subject to the below regulations:
…1.A Arbiters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to prevent confusion over the question of Arbiter votes on final decisions;
…1.B Magisters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible legislative interference;
…1.C The Delegate shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible Executive interference;
…1.D All appointed Attorneys must be able to pass a basic test on East Pacifican law, including questions on the Concordat, formulated by the Conclave;

— End quote

It’s strictly at their discretion, but now that I look at it, nothing here stops a Viceroy from denying the bar to anyone for political reasons, even though they passed the test, or from appointing someone hopelessly incompetent at law for much the same reason. Maybe the test results ought to be shown to the rest of the Arbiters, who would then vote on it.

— End quote

I should start by saying I approve of the intent of this resolution but want to ensure it would not be abused.

Besides ethics, what would prevent the Viceroy from falsifying test results?

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Would it be solely this test that appoints an Attorney, or would it be in charge of the Delegate, the Magisterium, and/or the Conclave, provided they got all the answers correct?

— End quote

— End quote

The Viceroy appoints Attorneys, as outlined in Article II, Section 1:

— Begin quote from ____

1. The Viceroy shall appoint several Attorneys from the Citizenry of the East Pacific, subject to the below regulations:
…1.A Arbiters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to prevent confusion over the question of Arbiter votes on final decisions;
…1.B Magisters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible legislative interference;
…1.C The Delegate shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible Executive interference;
…1.D All appointed Attorneys must be able to pass a basic test on East Pacifican law, including questions on the Concordat, formulated by the Conclave;

— End quote

It’s strictly at their discretion, but now that I look at it, nothing here stops a Viceroy from denying the bar to anyone for political reasons, even though they passed the test, or from appointing someone hopelessly incompetent at law for much the same reason. Maybe the test results ought to be shown to the rest of the Arbiters, who would then vote on it.

I should start by saying I approve of the intent of this resolution but want to ensure it would not be abused.

Besides ethics, what would prevent the Viceroy from falsifying test results?

— End quote

I suppose that proving decisively that the Viceroy (or whoever else is in charge of analyzing the tests) isn’t falsifying it would be difficult in any case. However, our Viceroy is supposed to be someone of unimpeachable conduct; anyone who would falsify test results obviously doesn’t qualify, and it would be easy to tell once the unqualified attorney began their work.

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Would it be solely this test that appoints an Attorney, or would it be in charge of the Delegate, the Magisterium, and/or the Conclave, provided they got all the answers correct?

— End quote

— End quote

— End quote

The Viceroy appoints Attorneys, as outlined in Article II, Section 1:

— Begin quote from ____

1. The Viceroy shall appoint several Attorneys from the Citizenry of the East Pacific, subject to the below regulations:
…1.A Arbiters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to prevent confusion over the question of Arbiter votes on final decisions;
…1.B Magisters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible legislative interference;
…1.C The Delegate shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible Executive interference;
…1.D All appointed Attorneys must be able to pass a basic test on East Pacifican law, including questions on the Concordat, formulated by the Conclave;

— End quote

It’s strictly at their discretion, but now that I look at it, nothing here stops a Viceroy from denying the bar to anyone for political reasons, even though they passed the test, or from appointing someone hopelessly incompetent at law for much the same reason. Maybe the test results ought to be shown to the rest of the Arbiters, who would then vote on it.

I should start by saying I approve of the intent of this resolution but want to ensure it would not be abused.

Besides ethics, what would prevent the Viceroy from falsifying test results?

I suppose that proving decisively that the Viceroy (or whoever else is in charge of analyzing the tests) isn’t falsifying it would be difficult in any case. However, our Viceroy is supposed to be someone of unimpeachable conduct; anyone who would falsify test results obviously doesn’t qualify, and it would be easy to tell once the unqualified attorney began their work.

— End quote

That’s what I meant by “besides ethics”: I know the Viceroy is supposed to be someone of unimpeachable conduct but the key word in your response and mine is “supposed to.” Matters in the executive in October didn’t go as they were supposed to; it is not hard to imagine a future judiciary not doing what they are supposed to.

What do you think about explicitly providing a clause for removal due to incompetence?

I see no need to object to this.

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

— Begin quote from ____

Would it be solely this test that appoints an Attorney, or would it be in charge of the Delegate, the Magisterium, and/or the Conclave, provided they got all the answers correct?

— End quote

— End quote

— End quote

— End quote

The Viceroy appoints Attorneys, as outlined in Article II, Section 1:

— Begin quote from ____

1. The Viceroy shall appoint several Attorneys from the Citizenry of the East Pacific, subject to the below regulations:
…1.A Arbiters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to prevent confusion over the question of Arbiter votes on final decisions;
…1.B Magisters shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible legislative interference;
…1.C The Delegate shall be ineligible for the position of Attorney, to preserve the independence of the Conclave from possible Executive interference;
…1.D All appointed Attorneys must be able to pass a basic test on East Pacifican law, including questions on the Concordat, formulated by the Conclave;

— End quote

It’s strictly at their discretion, but now that I look at it, nothing here stops a Viceroy from denying the bar to anyone for political reasons, even though they passed the test, or from appointing someone hopelessly incompetent at law for much the same reason. Maybe the test results ought to be shown to the rest of the Arbiters, who would then vote on it.

I should start by saying I approve of the intent of this resolution but want to ensure it would not be abused.

Besides ethics, what would prevent the Viceroy from falsifying test results?

I suppose that proving decisively that the Viceroy (or whoever else is in charge of analyzing the tests) isn’t falsifying it would be difficult in any case. However, our Viceroy is supposed to be someone of unimpeachable conduct; anyone who would falsify test results obviously doesn’t qualify, and it would be easy to tell once the unqualified attorney began their work.

That’s what I meant by “besides ethics”: I know the Viceroy is supposed to be someone of unimpeachable conduct but the key word in your response and mine is “supposed to.” Matters in the executive in October didn’t go as they were supposed to; it is not hard to imagine a future judiciary not doing what they are supposed to.

What do you think about explicitly providing a clause for removal due to incompetence?

— End quote

A Removal Clause does sound like a good idea, and I should have included that from the beginning. I’ll add that soon.

EDIT: Done.