The Supreme Court’s Civil Chambers have rejected the appeal of a lawyer suspended from practicing for 8 months for failing to pay his secretary for 21 consecutive months, violating multiple debt repayment agreements, disregarding a court order for wage garnishment, and sending bank statements showing unexecuted transfers. The profession is the subject of the book “Lawyer Networks – Lawyer Networks, Professional Aggregation and Studio Organization,” available on Shop Maggioli and Amazon.
Background
The case originated from a disciplinary procedure initiated against the lawyer by the District Disciplinary Council. The lawyer had stopped paying his secretary from December 2017 until her resignation in September 2019, amounting to 21 consecutive months without pay. Despite the accumulated debt, the lawyer had signed a private agreement for installments, followed by a conciliation settlement before the Labor Inspectorate, and another agreement with the creditor’s lawyer at the local Bar Association. None of these agreements were honored.
Related: Judge Can Change Prevention Measures
The judge in charge of enforcement at the court had ordered the garnishment of one-fifth of the lawyer’s salary, which the lawyer systematically ignored. Moreover, he continued to indicate the garnishment on payslips without actually paying the creditor. The most serious aspect, highlighted by both the District Disciplinary Council and the National Council of Forensic Studies (CNF), was the lawyer’s sending of bank statements showing credited transfers that were never made to the creditor’s account. This was deemed to falsely suggest payment, damaging the lawyer’s credibility with third parties and the overall image of the legal profession.
The disciplinary charge violated four articles of the Forensic Deontological Code: Article 9 (duties of honesty, dignity, decorum, and independence), Article 50 (duty of truth), Article 63 (relations with third parties), and Article 64 (obligation to fulfill obligations assumed towards third parties). The District Disciplinary Council, while excluding a violation of Article 50, found a violation of Article 63, sections 1 and 2, imposing an 8-month suspension from practicing, which was later confirmed by the CNF.
Related: Teams Search for Quake Victims on Independence Day
Legal Challenges
The lawyer appealed the decision, arguing procedural errors and lack of evidence. The Supreme Court, however, upheld the decision, stating that the facts were uncontested and that the lawyer’s actions were deliberate and personally imputable. The court also noted that the lawyer had recognized the debt, signed repayment agreements, and had a history of disciplinary proceedings. The 8-month suspension was deemed reasonable and proportionate to the lawyer’s actions.
Upon reflection, the 8-month suspension appears to be a severe but necessary measure to maintain the integrity and reputation of the legal profession. The lawyer’s actions, involving intentional non-payment, disregard for legal orders, and deceptive practices, are not only unethical but also potentially criminal. The suspension sends a clear message to the legal community that such behavior is intolerable and will not be tolerated.
