CCPR/C/113/DR/2176/2012
The facts as presented by the author
2.1
The author is a lawyer who led a campaign to reform Belgian legislation with a view
to strengthening the independence of the judiciary and lawyers. In 2000, he won a case
before the Brussels Labour Court, which led to law firms being required to make
redundancy payments to salaried lawyers in the event of termination of employment. The
author states that, because of his involvement in efforts to protect salaried lawyers’ rights,
from 2000 to 2010, he was constantly harassed and intimidated by leading law firms and
members of the Brussels Bar, who threatened him with disciplinary proceedings and
disbarment. He states that he was aware that the Bar would use any pretext to carry out its
threats and that throughout this period he was living under constant stress and pressure,
which resulted in the closure of his practice.
2.2
In 2005, the author was faced with clients who refused to pay him for his services,
even though he had secured a settlement of 400,000 euros in their favour in a court case.
According to the author, his clients, who were engaged in the diamond trade, were rich but
dishonest, as demonstrated by their previous conviction for fraudulent bankruptcy. As his
clients were preparing to flee the country, the author decided to sue them. During the legal
proceedings — after his clients had claimed that they had no assets and had sold off all their
property in Belgium — the author revealed that they had real property in France. The
clients in question took the view that the author had violated professional secrecy and
instituted disciplinary and criminal proceedings against him. 4 The author maintains that he
did not violate professional secrecy but simply provided the court with information
regarding his clients’ finances.
2.3
On 2 March 2007, the Brussels Bar notified the author that he was to face
disciplinary proceedings following allegations that he had violated professional secrecy and
retained court files, and complaints by colleagues concerning his offensive and threatening
behaviour towards them. An investigation was carried out by the President of the Bar, but,
according to the author, it was intended only to obtain evidence against him. The author
refutes entirely the charges against him, which he describes as fanciful, inconsistent and
illogical. 5 The author criticizes the “so-called” rules of ethics, which, in his view, are
merely a collection of unwritten, undefined, vague and fluctuating rules, which relate to
fuzzy notions such as probity, respect and decency, whose interpretation is therefore subject
to the discretion of the Disciplinary Board. On 5 March 2007, the author asked that he
should no longer be included on the roll of the French Section of the Brussels Bar, with
effect from 1 March 2007, citing personal reasons, health problems and harassment by
members of the Bar.
2.4
On 18 June 2009, the Disciplinary Board of the Brussels Bar decided to disbar the
author for “two gross breaches of professional secrecy in serious … circumstances;
complete disregard for the authorities of the Bar Association and his colleagues in general,
including abusive and threatening behaviour towards them … with no sign of any wish on
his part to make amends”. The author challenges the penalty imposed by the Bar because,
in his opinion, he has never been officially prosecuted or found guilty in criminal
4
5
GE.15-08734
According to the sparse information provided by the author on this matter, it would seem that the
criminal investigation was not conclusive, and that he was not prosecuted.
According to the copy of the disciplinary notice provided by the author, the following complaints
were upheld against the author: violation of professional secrecy (revealing information regarding
former clients with whom he was involved in litigation over fees) and breach of duties of diligence,
defence, collegiality, loyalty, dignity and deference towards the Association (failing to reply to the
letters sent by the investigator appointed by the Bar, refusing to hand over the files of former clients
to the latter’s new defence counsel, requesting pro rata payment of fees after informing his clients that
he was representing them pro bono, failing to appear at his clients’ hearing, defaming former clients,
repeated abuse and threats towards colleagues and the President of the Bar, unlawful advertising).
3