–
–
Lawyers usually represent their clients before the criminal judge. But here and there it happens that a lawyer sits in the courtroom as the accused. For example the lawyer who co-produced the Ibiza video. He was offered a diversion in mid-July and had to pay a total of 15,500 euros in fines and compensation by August 1.
The cause for the man is not yet settled. Disciplinary proceedings against the lawyer are now continuing at the Vienna Bar Association. Are these isolated cases? How does the Chamber deal with such incidents? The “Wiener Zeitung” spoke to Michael Enzinger, President of the Vienna Bar Association, about this and about current legal policy issues.
“Vienna Newspaper”: Mr. Enzinger, how often are there disciplinary proceedings against lawyers?
Michael Enzinger: In 2020, 401 complaints were received by the Chamber Attorney in the Vienna Bar Association. A good part is not pursued because there is no initial suspicion. A disciplinary file was created in 260 cases.
What are the cases?
In many cases, lawyers are accused of using language that is not theirs. It often happens that a lawyer does not respond to a request from the Chamber, which is disciplinary per se. A few cases involve lawyers who have breached money laundering reporting requirements.
There are also spectacular cases. In June 2018, a Viennese lawyer was sentenced to three years in prison for attempted determination of murder. In 2019, a Viennese lawyer who helped burglars steal 20 kilos of gold from an old lady’s apartment was sentenced to four years in prison.
Something like the gold story is extremely rare. It’s spectacular, but thank god it’s not what I normally have to deal with.
The criminal energy in such incidents is amazing. How can this happen despite years of training, tough exams and examinations for lawyers?
Opportunity makes thieves. That’s inside people. For some, the fuse blows when there are family or financial problems. Nobody is immune to that.
Michael Enzinger is a lawyer and President of the Vienna Bar Association.
– © Doris Kucera
The case against the “Ibiza lawyer” has recently attracted public attention. What is the disciplinary process in this case?
The procedure continues to clarify the disciplinary side.
The lawyer was also accused of trapping FPÖ politician Johann Gudenus with forged documents. Investigations into this have been discontinued. Is it still possible to take up this accusation in a disciplinary manner?
Yes. As a citizen, I have to be able to trust that a lawyer is one hundred percent on the ground of the law. Experienced lawyers do not act even when they are in a gray area. For example, we should not advise our clients to go for crazy constructions in tax havens, but rather find legally secure and legally compliant solutions for them.
The sanctions in disciplinary proceedings are warnings, fines, temporary professional bans and deletion from the list of lawyers. Can you get by with this set of tools?
In the most serious cases, punishments are not severe enough, even by the Supreme Court (Disciplinary proceedings are conducted in the first instance by the independent disciplinary councils of the bar associations, in the second instance the Supreme Court decides, note.). For me, there is no way around the catalog of penalties being tightened up. I personally and many other representatives of the profession also believe that the disciplinary proceedings must be much more transparent. The argument that everything takes place in our quiet little room cannot be completely dismissed out of hand.
Let’s switch to judicial policy issues. You recently sharply criticized the Economic and Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (WKStA) again in the “Kurier”. The Greens lined up their statements in the series of ÖVP attacks against the authority, since you are a shareholder in the PR agency of Heidi Glück, the former press spokeswoman for ex-Chancellor Wolfgang Bowl. Do you have an agenda with your criticism?
I object to being pushed into a political corner. This is not compatible with my function.
What is your role in the company? Are you involved in PR activities?
no I hold a minority interest in the company in trust. This is one of many trusts I have and has nothing to do with any political orientation. It is not okay for any factual criticism of processes in the judiciary to be given the same political mark. I simply believe that an organizational change would improve the currently delicate situation in the judiciary.
In what way?
I am not calling for the WKStA to be abolished. I would split them up between the four districts of the Higher Regional Courts.
What good would that do?
If the WKStA were located at the senior public prosecutor’s offices, the public prosecutors would meet at the same level. That was originally the intention when the authority was created: That’s why all public prosecutors at the WKStA are senior public prosecutors. At the moment, however, you have a special authority that believes it is something better.
In the “Kurier” you also said that you don’t have to worry about the criminal defense lawyers as long as the WKStA is an “unguided missile”. Aren’t you pouring oil on the fire of the already politicized and polarizing legal debates with such sharp statements?
I wouldn’t take back a single word of it. You only have to look at the conviction rate of the WKStA. I can only accuse you if there is an overriding probability of a conviction. This principle is ignored.
Through the opinion researcher Sabine Beinschab, who became a key witness in the ÖVP investigations, the key witness rule moved into the public focus. What do you think of this rule in general?
The legal profession was reserved about the leniency rule from the start. “If you confess, you go free, if you deny, you stay there”: That does not correspond to the rule of law. I reject this kind of Americanization. I deeply hate it.
However, the key witness can contribute to the clarification.
In antitrust law, I suppose. It’s about economic issues, where companies gain undue advantages over competitors, and about economic compensation regulations. But that has no place in criminal law.
–
