We should spare a thought for lawyers in Syria. I know that we have large issues like alternative business structures and legal aid to concern us, but they have a life-and-death struggle on their hands.

The Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) has been writing letters to the Syrian government for nearly a year now, complaining about the treatment of lawyers during the current unrest. In our most recent letter we recited the following accounts, all relating to lawyers: on 28 November 2011, Fahd Musa al-Musa was arrested after a raid on his friend’s house, and they were both taken to an unknown destination in an unacceptable way; on 15 December 2011, Abdullah Al-Khalil was arrested for the third time since the beginning of the recent violence in Syria, and his son, Mohammad, who is barely 16 years old, was arrested along with him; on 15 December 2011, the security forces arrested Dirar Ismail Najm and took him to an unknown destination - the authorities have not contacted their families to disclose where they are being held, or the reasons for their arrest, and the families have been too frightened to ask directly about their whereabouts.

Ahmad Al-Rashid was abducted from the Palace of Justice in Aleppo, beaten and wounded before his colleagues, and then dragged inside the trunk of a car - his colleagues obstructed the way of the perpetrators, and finally released their colleague from the trunk, covered in blood; Abdul Salam Al-Atrush, Salam Othman and Husameddine Al-Asad were abducted more than four months ago and remain unaccounted for.

And what is their professional organisation, the Syrian Bar, doing about this? Regrettably, it appears that they are not only doing nothing, but worse than nothing. The CCBE has no policy on the status of the Syrian Bar, but the Syrian Bar is a member of both world-wide bodies, the Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA) and the International Bar Association (IBA), and they have each issued a statement over the last few months.

The UIA said recently: ‘The UIA wishes to remind the Syrian Bar of its obligations to defend the legal profession and its members... according to the information available to the UIA, Syrian professional bodies are supporting the regime by pressuring lawyers to show their support for the regime and are reporting those who refuse or who, on the contrary express their opposition. This has resulted in disciplinary procedures, arbitrary arrests and criminal proceedings that are primarily intended to suppress freedom of conscience and freedom of expression... consequently the UIA is questioning the legitimacy of the Syrian Bar’s membership to the UIA.’

The IBA is also questioning the future membership of the Syrian Bar in its organisation. Its Human Rights Institute organised a visit to Syria in early 2011, after the unrest had begun. Its report expresses serious concerns about the independence of the Bar - for instance ‘rather than offering assistance to human rights lawyers persecuted by the government, the Syrian Bar Association has on many occasions used its power to institute disciplinary proceedings in addition to the criminal proceedings against the lawyer.’

The report has a fascinating section on the history of the Bar. It appears that the reason for the current supine attitude of the Bar towards the government may be because it once tried to fight for the rule of law. In March 1980, it led a one-day strike against the Emergency Law. In April 1980, it was dissolved, and many members were detained. Most of those punished were released as a result of presidential amnesties issued between 1991 and 1995 - over 10 years later! - but about a dozen are thought to have been executed or to have died in custody. In 1981, the Bar was organised to be under the control of the ruling party, and although that was somewhat modified in 2010, the Bar remains under party control.

The question, as always in these circumstances, is what it is best to do. Cut off all contact; or engage (in the hope of bringing influence to bear)? This has been the difficult question over many years when dealing with organisations under dictatorial regimes. Cutting off contact is easy, and makes us feel good. Engagement is fraught with difficulty, because it appears to support oppressive structures. The question arises, for instance, in relation to the recent visit of the UK Foreign Secretary to Burma.

It would be good to know what the mass of our Syrian colleagues would like us to do. In the meanwhile, we have to make difficult decisions and hope that they are helpful.

Jonathan Goldsmith is secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, which represents about one million European lawyers through its member bars and law societies. He blogs weekly for the Gazette on European affairs