The case concerns Piotr Z., who in 2017 investigated a female injured in a road accident. She suffered serious injuries and fought for compensation.
The insurance company decided to pay out 2 amounts from the OC: PLN 262,000 and PLN 291 thousand. The money was transferred to the account of Piotr Z.'s law firm as the victim's attorney. However, only PLN 100 1000 went to the woman. The rest, i.e. PLN 454,000 paid by the insurer, was transferred by the legal counsel to the law firm, which he worked with. With the company, the victim was to conclude this agreement. According to his mandate, the counsel was to accept money on behalf of his client. However, he did not account for the full amount of compensation, so the female spoke to him and hired another lawyer. The man did not answer the telephone and did not answer the text of the fresh lawyer for the victim.
As a result, the case was dealt with, among another things, by a disciplinary spokesperson for legal advisers and charged Peter Z. with 3 disciplinary offences. In 2020, a territory disciplinary court found him guilty and suspended him in law for 2 years to prosecute the profession of legal counsel.
– Described by the guilty way of pursuing the profession and moving the law firm, the pathological settlement strategy adopted by him, with the exception of the client, stay in gross contradiction with the work to keep independency and loyalty to the client and the drastic abuse of his trust," the court argued.
Following the complaint of the Minister of Justice, the ultimate Disciplinary Court of KIRP changed its ruling and next to the suspension conviction he banned Peter Z. from performing the patronage for 4 years. However, he did not give a disciplinary spokesperson to the Chamber of Professional work on this matter. He demanded the annulment of the ruling due to the unknown provisions of the punishment of banning patronage or expelling Peter Z. from the profession.
During the hearing, the spokesperson withdrew the cassation, so the SN left it undetected. This means that the punishment of suspension and prohibition of patronage has been approved. The reason for the withdrawal was the threat of limitation of criminality in the event of the repeal of the judgment.
