Cher Confrère: Your Secrets Are Safe with the Geneva Bar Commission

The Geneva Bar Commission, entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of the legal profession, should be a cornerstone of justice, fairness, and transparency. However, the experiences of those seeking accountability suggest that it may be far from fulfilling its mission.

One recent case involves a whistleblower who raised concerns about harassment and serious violations of professional standards. Over the course of over a decade, this individual faced not only workplace retaliation, defamation by the Geneva state representative on the Board, Pascal Emery (to exonerate the Director-General, management and others) and a confirmed 'non-cct' dismissal but also apparent judicial harassment when they attempted to seek justice through Geneva’s legal system. Multiple lawyers were hired to represent the whistleblower at enormous expense, but, instead of protecting their rights, many of these legal professionals acted in ways that further harmed the victim’s case. Complaints were raised with the Geneva Bar Commission, since at least 2018, to no avail.

Despite clear obligations under Swiss law—both to ensure that lawyers comply with professional ethics and to sanction violations—the Bar Commission appeared to prioritize the protection of its members over the rights of individuals. In this whistleblower’s case, complaints were filed against several lawyers for serious alleged breaches of conduct, including conflicts of interest, procedural failures, inadequate representation and worse. Yet, these complaints were met with what can only be described as deliberate inaction. Rather than investigating the claims, the Commission chose to "presidentially file" them, essentially setting them aside without substantive review.

The most striking example of this occurred when the whistleblower reported the actions of a lawyer who was force-appointed by the Ministère Public to represent them. This lawyer’s mandate was later admitted by the prosecutor herself to be unjustified, and evidence has now emerged in the form of a letter from Vincent Spira, Deputy President of the Bar Commission, to the lawyer, endorsing her recusal on grounds which will apparently now be bound by professional secrecy - months after the whistleblower had been concerned about it and after a damning verdict was delivered by the very prosecutor who appointed the lawyer. The Bar Commission apparently did nothing to address the irregularities surrounding this appointment or addressing the impacts on the blacklisted an criminalised victim. Instead, it seems that the Geneva Bar Commission, which should have intervened to protect the victim's rights, appeared to shield the lawyer. Evidence shows that the lawyer was then authorised by the prosecutor's office to collect over 2000 chf from legal aid for 11.5 hours work, calling further into question the use of public money!

When another lawyer, who had charged exorbitant fees for questionable services, sought to recover even more fees through legal action, the Bar Commission lifted professional secrecy to enable the pursuit of these additional fees—despite confirming that the lawyer was subject to a separate procedure. To add insult to injury, the whistleblower was charged 200 chf for the lifting of his professional secrecy. Once again, the Commission seemed more interested in facilitating the financial interests of the legal professional than in ensuring justice for the client.

This, says the whistleblower, is the tip of the iceberg, especially since complaints about the opposition lawyer, Francoise Markarian, include initiating an allegedly malicious prosecution without a valid power of attorney, obtaining access to confidential letters and evidence addressed to a judge by whistleblowers (suggesting collusion), representing the organisation and its pension fund in an apparent conflict of interests and being paid from an 'avoirs clients' account for questionable services (such as apparently unreasonable surveillance, direct access to a prosecutor and apparently photocopying untold correspondence - apparently from the whistleblower to a particular official). Complaints about this lawyer have been presidentially classified.

In these cases, the Bar Commission's lack of accountability raises serious questions about the protection of victims' rights in Geneva’s legal system. By failing to investigate, sanction, or even properly address these complaints, the Commission has effectively insulated legal professionals from scrutiny, while leaving victims vulnerable and without recourse.

In a system where the Bar Commission refuses to uphold its duties, victims like this whistleblower are left to question: Who is the Commission really protecting? Because it certainly isn’t the public.

The whistleblower is apparently entitled to receive the outcomes of the complaint she has raised.

The apparent irony of this letter from Shahran Dini, President of the Geneva Bar Commission with Stephane Werly, responsible for data compliance and transparency (PPDT) in public bodies in Geneva such as the Bar Commission, speaks volumes!