The absence of training produces various consequences. It is sometimes believed that the lawyers are competent, as claims for invalidation are filed regularly. On the other hand, it is also observed that the procedure is misunderstood by the lawyers since the releases are always raised ex officio by the judge. The lawyers rarely appeal, and thus there is very little case law on these questions, often leaving the judges, the police officers, the hospital staff and administration with no direction when faced with certain legal loopholes. It therefore appears that the rare initiative of specific training for lawyers must be encouraged, but it must be organised such that it does not change the hearing of the JLD into a dispute with the institution on one side and the patient on the other. The remuneration of the lawyers is also subject to debate. Firstly, only cases that are pleaded are effectively remunerated. However, in the case of hospitals that are far from the seat of the Bar, the lawyers are obliged to travel for hearings that are sometimes cancelled at the last minute. Scheduling efforts are therefore necessary to solve this difficulty, wherever it occurs. The remuneration for legal aid is also an obstacle to the availability of lawyers. According to a president of a Bar, “this legal aid pays a miserly sum that does not cover the economic costs incurred by a lawyer for exercising his business. This is all the more evident when the lawyer intervening in the hearing is an employee, as the payment made to the firm is not sufficient to cover his hourly rate.” Finally, note that since the decision of the legal aid office generally occurs two months after the hearing, several patients with greater resources than the limit imposed by law were refused legal aid and yet were billed the fees even though they did not wish to be assisted in the hearing but are onliged to do so by law. The question of the lawyer’s role and the terms of his involvement do not seem to have been treated satisfactorily anywhere. Everywhere, one or another aspect of this role faces obstacles or uncertainty, which harms the interest of the patients. The public authorities must, in consultation with each Bar of lawyers, ensure the removal of the local obstacles to the presence of lawyers at the hearings of the liberty and custody judge, and ensure that legal training specific to hospitalisation without consent is offered to the lawyers concerned. The Public Health Code states that after both sides have been heard, the judge will give his ruling publicly. He may decide to hold or continue the debates in chambers if the public nature of the debate violates privacy, if disturbances occur that affect the tranquillity of the court or if one the parties requests such. This request is granted when it is made by the person subject to the psychiatric treatment. The material organisation of the hearing varies from one hospital to the other, and sometimes even in the same institution when multiple judges are working. Some JLD use the place reserved for them as the presiding chairman, while others organise the room as if for a meeting, with all parties involved sitting around a table. The first arrangement emphasises the solemnity of the session, while the second helps in relaxing the patient. The JLD can thus choose his position and thereby provoke different reactions from the patients brought before him/her. The patients are rarely invited to remain standing in the podium, since the JLD believe that allowing them to be seated at the table helps in reducing stress. Diverse attitudes exist as concerns wearing robes. Certain judges wear them to remind others of the dignity and majesty associated with their role, while others believe that this formality needlessly frightens patients, some of whom may have faced a criminal judge in the past. In the 19