This case concerns Robert M., who held a council application in Warsaw. However, his career in this profession became questionable in July 2020. At the time, he was a private prosecutor in a trial before a territory court. In the course of the proceedings, the future legal advisor requested, among others, the exclusion of the investigating justice and a complaint against 1 of his orders. There wouldn't be anything different about it if it wasn't for the content of these pleadings. In them he accused the justice of obstructing the appropriate conduct of the proceedings, tagging and wanting to "fail".
The lawyer formulated his writings in a controversial and unspeakable way. In his motion to exclude the judge, he wrote: “Mrs. M. is worse than a heartless executioner. He behaves like a German during the occupation. I decision to exclude this detached pseudo justice from reality."
Another man’s conclusion reads: “Mrs. M. has passed herself in these cuts. No uncertainty he has problems with correct thinking. He's writing a ridiculous phrasing to blow the case. It ignites the fire of revenge.”
The Capital Court notified the peculiar practices of the applicant of the territory Chamber of Legal Advisors. The case was brought before a disciplinary court who found that a man had committed a disciplinary offence and violated the dignity of the applicant. As a result, he was sentenced to expulsion from the application.
– The content of the pleadings addressed to the territory court leaves no uncertainty as to their explanation as inadmissible to the justice handling the case. (...) In these writings it is hard to find at least 1 paragraph which does not contain an invector at the address of the justice – the disciplinary court indicated.
Robert M. appealed against this decision, demanding acquittal. This was justified, among another things, by the failure of the disciplinary proceeding during his absence and by the court's questioning the reliability of the medical certificate. However, the higher disciplinary court did not take that conclusion into account. He pointed out that the guilty did not request to be present at the trial, and the court exercised due diligence. The Court of First Instance stressed that the way in which applicants behave should be a model for another members of society, and that the behaviour of the accused individual undermines the trust in the profession of legal counsel and the authority of the council.
Eventually, the man filed a cassation with the ultimate Court Chamber of Responsibility. However, the second dismissed the cassation as manifestly unfounded, maintaining the expulsion punishment from the application.
File number: II ZK 47/23
