Inside Police Custody 2 A notable exception to this overall picture is Spain, where lawyers were observed to be generally respectful and attentive when advising and assisting clients, taking time to allow their clients to express themselves, and asking them about the facts and circumstances concerning the suspected offence(s). They normally took an interest in the exercise of their clients’ rights, ensuring that they had been informed of them, and inquiring whether they had been able to exercise them. The only major concern, as noted in section 4.5 above, was that in many of the cases observed, lawyers did not make used of the relatively new right to consult with their clients before interrogation. It is noteworthy that, of all the countries in the study, Spain has the most developed approach to quality assurance. As noted in section 4.2 above, in order to be a member of a duty lawyer scheme, a candidate must have been a member of the relevant bar association for a minimum of three years, have completed a specified course, and passed relevant assessments. It is also, arguably, relevant that they operate within a well-regulated context regarding the right of access to a lawyer for suspects in police detention, and regarding the role of the lawyer in such circumstances. 4.8 Conclusions The law in all of the countries in the study provides for a right of access to a lawyer. In some cases, such a right pre-dated transposition of the Directive, but the Directive resulted in the right being modified or expanded, and regulated in greater detail. However, in a number of countries the right is limited in a way that is not in conformity with the Directive. In Romania, the right of access to a lawyer does not apply to the procedure described as ‘administrative leading to the police station’ even though this may be a prelude to an arrest. In Bulgaria, the law does provide for a right of access to a lawyer from the moment of detention by the police, but there is no provision for a right to a private consultation with the lawyer, nor for a right to have a lawyer present during an ‘exploratory conversation’. Given these, and other limitations, the Bulgarian researchers concluded that there is no effective right of access to a lawyer during the initial stages of police detention. A number of the countries have a system of mandatory defence, either in all cases (such as Italy and Spain) or for certain categories of suspect or offence (such as Hungary). Romania and Slovenia have systems of mandatory defence, but they do not apply at the initial stages of detention. Lithuania is introducing mandatory defence for suspects under arrest from January 2019. However, in a number of countries, the right of access to a lawyer is, in effect, limited by regulating the time that the police have to wait for a lawyer before proceeding with investigative actions such as interrogation (or ‘informal’ interview), or by permitting investigative actions to be conducted before a lawyer arrives at the police station. Whilst the circumstances in which, under the Directive, the right of access to a lawyer may be derogated from is strictly limited, in a minority of countries the derogation provisions are not confined to the circumstances required by the Directive. Effective exercise of the right of access to a lawyer is, in practice, limited by a range of factors. A major problem in many of the countries in the study is that, in practice, the right of access to a lawyer is severely limited by the lack of legal aid, or by procedures for applying for legal aid which mean that it is not effectively available at the early stages of the criminal process. This is a major reason why, in many countries, whilst the law provides for a right of access to a lawyer, very few persons who are arrested or detained actually have a lawyer during that period. Furthermore, there is evidence in some countries that the police use fears about the cost of having a lawyer to deter suspects from exercising their right. It is 53