Update, 16 September 2026
The case before the lawyers’ disciplinary committee remains unresolved.
Trust in lawyers is not tested very much when everything goes well.
It is tested when a member of the public complains about a lawyer and then experiences, in the oversight process, the same uncertainty they complained about.
That raises an important question of trust for the rule of law:
If lawyers are one of the cornerstones of the rule of law, how do we ensure that oversight of them not only exists but is also visibly effective, transparent and worthy of public confidence?
A cornerstone of the rule of law
Benedikt Bogason, President of the Supreme Court of Iceland, has pointed out that the courts and lawyers are two cornerstones of the rule of law.
Independent and impartial courts resolve disputes about the law. At the same time, an independent and strong legal profession is essential if people are to seek justice, defend their interests and trust that their rights will be respected.
Lawyers therefore occupy a special position.
They are not simply advisers in an ordinary service market. They have a statutory status, exclusive rights to certain work before the courts, and are often involved in the most sensitive and important interests of individuals and businesses.
It follows that trust in lawyers is not a private matter for the legal profession.
It is part of public trust in the rule of law itself.
Independence requires accountability
Benedikt has also pointed to the importance of effective oversight of lawyers’ work.
Members of the public who turn to a lawyer need to be able to trust that the service is adequate and that, when things go wrong, there will be an appropriate response.
This is the heart of it.
Oversight must do more than exist.
It must work.
And it must be seen to work.
Stefán A. Svensson, Chair of the Icelandic Bar Association, has also argued that the independence of the legal profession requires oversight of lawyers to rest largely with the profession itself rather than with government authorities.
That perspective matters.
An independent legal profession is not only in lawyers’ interests. It is also part of protecting the individual against state power.
But independence comes with responsibility.
Self-regulation inspires confidence only if it is active, transparent and effective. If the public is to trust that a profession can oversee its own work, the public must also be able to see that the oversight is real.
It is not enough for committees, rules and remedies to exist on paper.
The experience of the person turning to the system matters too.
When the system is tested
I write this not as a lawyer, but as a citizen and the representative of a company that has had reason to test this system.
On 10 February 2026, the lawyers’ disciplinary committee received a formal complaint I submitted concerning the work of a particular lawyer.
The complaint concerned not a fee dispute but alleged neglect of the client’s interests, delays, lack of communication and failure to provide documents.
It was accompanied by a written account, a timeline, supporting arguments and documents.
When this was originally written, on 5 July 2026, nearly five months had passed since the complaint was received without a decision, despite repeated follow-up.
I make no claim about what the substantive outcome of the case should be.
That is for the committee to assess.
The experience does, however, raise reasonable questions about predictability, information and effectiveness in the oversight of lawyers.
How does the individual experience the process?
The question is not only whether oversight exists.
It is also how someone outside the legal profession experiences it.
Do they receive clear information?
Do they know what happens next?
Are they told how long the proceedings may take?
Do they receive updates on the status of the case?
Can they see that the case is moving forward?
These are not unreasonable expectations.
On the contrary, these are things we would expect in good communication between a lawyer and a client.
The client needs to know what is happening, what happens next and whether the work to protect their interests is progressing.
Oversight must not mirror the problem
This is where the question of trust becomes particularly clear.
If a complaint concerns delays, lack of communication and failure to provide documents, but the complainant then experiences prolonged uncertainty and limited information during the handling of that complaint, a problem inevitably arises.
Oversight intended to maintain trust must not become a mirror of the experience being complained about.
The proceedings themselves then become part of a larger question of trust.
In a society governed by the rule of law, it is not enough for a person to be able to submit a complaint.
They must also be able to trust that it will enter a clear, active and predictable process.
Asking how that is ensured is not an attack on lawyers.
On the contrary, that question is necessary if we want to protect trust in the legal profession and, with it, one of the cornerstones of the rule of law.
Trust must be visible
The independence of lawyers matters to the rule of law.
But independence without visible accountability does not build trust.
If the legal profession is to play a major role in overseeing its own work, the public must be able to see that this oversight is active, understandable and real.
Trust in lawyers will not be protected by asking the public to trust the system.
It will be protected by showing them that the system deserves their trust.