There is no dispute that the Jordanian Lawyers Union provides real benefits to its members.
And there is no argument that these benefits – from retirement, to insurance, to mutual support – constitute a rare safety net in a harsh and fluctuating professional market.
But the question we avoid asking, and perhaps fear the consequences of, is the most dangerous question?
Have these benefits become a compensation for a deeper failure in the professional market?
The repeated talk about the “greatness of what the union offers” often hides an uncomfortable truth that we focus more on what the lawyer receives from the union, rather than what they can earn from the market. It is not natural - in any freelance profession - to feel basic security through retirement and mutual aid funds, rather than through work and productivity.
Nor is it natural to measure a lawyer's stability by what they will pay at the end of their service, rather than what they earn during the years of practice.
A healthy profession does not live on safety nets, but on a fair and productive market.
And the safety net was created to support the market, not to replace it.
High demand… Is it success or a warning?
When the number of new members exceeds three thousand lawyers annually, the real question is not:
How encouraging is this number? But rather
Can the market absorb them with dignity?
The union may succeed in registering them, insuring them, and supporting them.
But who protects them from disguised unemployment?
Who protects their fees from collapse?
Who protects the profession from turning into a sign with no economic substance?
The union, by nature, combines a social mutual role and a professional regulatory role
But the problem begins when
social rhetoric dominates and professional discussion is marginalized, and defending the “gains” becomes an alternative to market reform
And the most dangerous thing that can happen to any profession is to become accustomed to its crisis, and to mask it with numbers.
We do not like to say that the number of lawyers exceeds the market's needs and the training does not match the quantity, and fees are declining, and competition is unregulated and justice in opportunities is lost
So instead, we turn to a comforting narrative:
“Look how much the union offers”
While the sincerer question is: Why does the lawyer need all this support in the first place?
The union is not the problem.
And the benefits are not the mistake.
But turning the benefits into proof of the profession's health, is the most dangerous illusion.
A strong profession is not measured by the value of retirement or the number of members but by the lawyer’s ability to live decently from their work today, not in thirty years. And if we do not start a frank discussion about the economy of the profession, its market regulation, and fairness in competition,
Soon, we will find ourselves defending a “strong union”…
for a weak profession.
