All the guilds have good, regular, bad and even aggressive professionals. If a litigant abuses you, you can report it. Know some of the disciplinary faults in which some of them incur.
The Disciplinary Code of the Lawyer is the norm that regulates the behavior of these professionals of the law that can incur in diverse types of faults. One of them is not to deliver to the corresponding, and as soon as possible, money, goods or documents received under professional management or delay the communication of this receipt.
This happened with a lawyer to whom the Disciplinary Board of the Judiciary Council disqualified for four months to practice his profession after verifying that he did not give his client a sum of money received as agencies in law and procedural costs recognized in a judicial proceeding.
The court warned that these behaviors remain in time until the infringed duty is fulfilled or there is an opportunity to do so.
The one of bad faith
The most severe sanction that contemplates the Disciplinary Code of the Lawyer was imposed to a litigant that was excluded of the profession to commit itself with a client to obtain a result that was impossible. For the Council of the Judiciary, it is the duty of the lawyer to verify the status of the process for which he is hired, because if he undertakes to obtain an unattainable result he would be acting in bad faith.
In this case, by simply reviewing the status of the process beforehand, the sanctioned may have concluded the impossibility of achieving what was expected of her. There was here, according to the providence, a lack of duty to preserve dignity and decorum in the various efforts.
Another lawyer was suspended from professional practice for two years to indulge in indigent conduct after accepting the management and not carry out any diligence throughout the judicial process, thus damaging the interests of his client. Not happy with it, he charged professional fees.
The Council of the Judicature concluded that “the lawyer involved, despite having demanded money to carry out the management in charge, did not fulfill the agreement (…) and on the contrary, he told them that everything was fine and that the matter I was on the right track.”
The “blind eye”
A very common case is that of the lawyer who collects his fees and receives the money from his client, but omits his legal obligation to issue the receipt to which he has the right to hire him to demonstrate the payment of what is agreed between the parties.
In these cases, says the Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, the lawyer incurs a lack of honesty, it is an improper and irresponsible exercise of the profession to ignore the rules that the activity imposes, in this case Article 35 of the Disciplinary Code of the Lawyer.
There are cases in which it does not matter that a certain conduct does not have adverse effects, as happened with a lawyer who acted against the straight and loyal realization of justice by sending an email to a witness advising him to make statements in his statement that no they corresponded with reality, to the detriment of their counterparts. Although the witness did not manage to testify in the respective process as advised by the lawyer, the Judicial Council, which sanctioned the litigant, criticized that the legal professional had used his legal knowledge to defraud his opponent to the detriment of the administration of justice itself. The ruling concluded that this conduct was a cheating act because it intended to defraud the legal aspirations of the counterpart.
An eight-month suspension was imposed on a lawyer for using inappropriate expressions against his counterpart in a hearing to disqualify his writing and criticize his personal appearance.
The Disciplinary Chamber of the Superior Council concluded in its ruling that the sanctioned party infringed with his conduct the duty to act with restraint, seriousness, consideration and respect towards the participants of the process, and warned that, although it is true that legal contradictions require opposition from evidence, arguments, reasons of fact or law, in no way can encourage or allow lawyers to confront in their procedural interventions to those involved in the trial without there being cause for justification.
For lying, omitting his duties and taking advantage of his client’s ignorance, a lawyer was suspended in the exercise of the profession after proving that he misled his agent, who convinced him that the executive process for which he had been contracted was over, although it was in force in a court and was pending a final decision. Precisely, the commitment to make the contract effective was the culmination of a mortgage process that was promoted against the deceived person. In this case, the litigant committed bad faith and forgot to defend the dignity and decorum of the profession, provided in the Disciplinary Code of the Lawyer.
Another litigant violated the duty of preserving the dignity and decorum of the profession, which requires observing and demanding restraint, seriousness and consideration, physically assaulting his counterpart in a meeting in which matters related to foreclose assets were agreed upon. In a succession process in which the lawyer and the complainant were counterparts.