Who's regulating Geneva lawyers?

Approximately 50,000 chf in legal costs just since November 2021 and incalculable costs since 2013 in a whistleblower case in which the private school involved has refused to respond positively to requests for conciliatory solutions - seemingly preferring to keep the case in a Geneva judiciary which the whistleblower contends is far from impartial and which the school lawyer and the former state representative on the school's board, PASCAL EMERY, are members of.

At least two reputable law firms wrote a legal opinion?in respect of a directive issued by the then department of PASCAL EMERY’S wife in September 2019 (coincidentally within days of another school whistleblower being dismissed) which mandates INTERNAL reporting of child maltreatment in GENEVA PRIVATE SCHOOLS only. This legal opinion makes clear that the mandatory obligation to report allegations of psychological, physical (including strangulation, which is even specifically mentioned as a form of physical abuse) and sexual mistreatment of children to the authorities. Yet the whistleblower’s own lawyers seem to have missed this point, amongst others - especially relating to PASCAL EMERY.

In any case, whistleblowers seemed to have reported concerns internally and then externally. PASCAL EMERY was involved in at least two cases and the Geneva judiciary doesn't seem keen on investigations or accountability.

International bodies, including the EU Commission, make reference to the lack of legal independence in the case of one whistleblower whose complaints about the Geneva Public Prosecutor M Olivier Jornot have been referred back to the Geneva judiciary by the Swiss deputy public prosecutor, M Ruedi Montanari. Since then, the whistleblower contends that the judicial harassment has intensified.

The whistleblower alleges that lawyer have either been unwilling or unable to independently represent her best interests, and that the evidence she has provided to Me Shahram Dini and the Geneva Bar Commission (also under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Judiciary) supports a range of breaches, from breaches of all applicable legal codes to criminal breaches. The whistleblower is still waiting for a response to an August 11th 2023 letter to the Geneva Bar Commission (sent by registered post and in French) detailing/evidence of behaviours such as not protecting the victims', legal or human rights of their own clients, failing to follow up with their client's criminal complaints & data requests, not providing legal opinions, not turning up for court, sharing allegedly corrupt medical data & further data protection breaches, failing to declare conflicting interests & dropping the case at crucial points. Tantamount, in some cases, to alleged corruption, fraud & working against client's best interests.

One lawyer, who attended two criminal hearings, failed to mention that his father was a former Geneva head of state in the same political party as Pascal Emery and his wife, Anne Emery-Torracinta. The whistleblower paid the lawyer, who was - at least - personable, 12,000 chf and when the third bill - for almost 6,000 chf - arrived, the whistleblower respectfully requested some clarification as she felt that he had not taken a single action to defend her rights.

He didn't respond, even to advise that the first prosecutor in the case had left the Geneva judiciary five months after her conclusions were due at the end of May 2022. He hadn't appeared to follow up between the end of May and when the whistleblower asked for advice having discovered that the prosecutor had gone! He dropped the case in January 2023 and the whistleblower raised concerns with legal regulators. Even though Shahram Dini advises that the lawyer is subject to a separate procedure, the lawyer has now issued a poursuite to the whistleblower for his last bill.

This is what Me Shahram Dini wrote (translation),?"the Office notes that the review of the Bar Commission concerns only the possible reasons which could oppose the lifting of professional secrecy?of the lawyer with a view to recovering his fees and in no way on the merits of the dispute, it being specified that in the present case the various grievances formulated against (lawyer) are the subject of?a separate procedure."??

What separate procedure??In the same way that the?Geneva Pouvoir has apparently PROSECUTED the whistleblower instead of her criminal complaints (whilst hiding the outcomes of proceedings which have resulted in records being held in several jurisdictions), it seems that this lawyer has been given the benediction of the Geneva Bar Commission to pursue further fees when the whistleblower asserts that they have yet to justify certain actions, the 12,000 chf already paid, or provide any?evidence of any positive action taken to represent the whistleblower's best interests.

Amongst the concerns/questions/allegations raised with the lawyer seemingly include:

• Calling to offer services & assurances that challenging state authorities, without informing the whistleblower that his father was a former head of state in the same political party as PASCAL EMERY’s wife;
• Failing to advise of rights under the LAVI?(victim support) legislation in Switzerland and the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code. Mme Judith Levy Owczamczak, the first prosecutor, was prosecuting the whistleblower instead of the whistleblower’s criminal complaints referred by the police, already in file?P17792/2021;
• Advising the whistleblower (with a witness present), on May 16th 2022, that?Mme Judith Levy Owczamczak would make her decision within two weeks, and not following up or responding to the whistleblower - even after the whistleblower advised him that this prosecutor had left the Ministère public in October;
• Advising the whistleblower that the prosecutor would find her guilty- so that she would have to go through an appeals process.?How could he have known that?;
• Charging the whistleblower for a call with another lawyer in which he apparently expressed favourable views of the prosecutor (more informal lawyer/prosecutor contact?) - & not informing the whistleblower about the call – or the prosecutor’s views;
• Failing to obtain data necessary for the criminal defence of the whistleblower (under LIPAD, LAVI or the Swiss Federal Criminal Procedure), including relating to records held by at least Sussex Police, the Irish Police Serious Organised Crime Division, Irish Prison Services and UK Prison Services;
• Asking the whistleblower to provide questions to ask the perpetrators of the alleged false allegations in court & then bringing a printed sheet of different questions which seemed to be helpful to the opposition? Where did these printed questions come from?
• Apparently erroneous notes from two allegedly dehumanising criminal hearings have never been corrected and there has been no insistence by this lawyer that they are. The whistleblower painstakingly corrected the notes, and even refused to sign the notes from the second hearing (which were not even translated for her). The lawyer did not even challenge the fact that the record states that they were translated and that?the whistleblower?signed them;?
• Failing to challenge Mme Judith Levy Owczamczak's failure to provide her written decision to delay investigating serious allegations made during this distressing criminal process (which would have enabled the whistleblower to challenge this decision before she was criminalised over complaints supported by evidence which was apparently about years past the limitation for making complaints);
• Ignoring request for data related to all?third?parties;
• Discussing the case with at least two lawyers without a procuration, including a state force appointed lawyer who the second prosecutor later admitted had been appointed without justification;
• Ignoring questions over charges, including over others attending meetings;
• Failing to provide details of litigation A407/2023 -PROF (ATA/426/2023) - apparently launched by him;
• Dropping the case after the whistleblower asked what the next steps were after the first prosecutor left;
• Expecting the whistleblower to pay almost 18,000 chf for this service.

?

The whistleblower feels that the only time the lawyer acted was to write to her on a Sunday to obtain contact details of petitioning parents at the school, so that he could speak to them. This lawyer should have known that, even if the whistleblower possessed such details, that this would have been unauthorised data sharing.

Me Dini Shahram writes (translated) “after having weighed the interests involved, the Office of the Bar Commission considers that the private interest of (the lawyer) in the recovery of his fees appears preponderant in the present case."?

Apparently, the private interests of Geneva lawyers facing a procedures for their conduct, supersede the rights of their alleged victims!