The magistrate of the Court of Education number 1 of Ourense has agreed to impose a fine of 180 euros on a lawyer on duty for failing to comply with his request to appear on 2 October 2024 to attend the deposition as an investigator of a client. In the government agreement, the judge explains that the lawyer communicated that, “for the exercise of the legitimate and fundamental right to strike” she would not appear at the deposition, and that the proceedings would be suspended until the strike was called. Although, as stated in the agreement, he had been warned “of the corresponding sanction that could be imposed in case of failure to appear”, he did not address the court “nor provided due assistance to the person under investigation.”
“In relation to the arguments put forward by the lawyer, it should be noted that there is no legal provision that protects the lawyer’s right to strike in relation to the issues assigned to him by the office on duty, nor is there any judicial decision issued by a body belonging to the social jurisdiction that recognizes the right to strike, nor does it appear that those responsible for calling the lawyers’ strike on duty have requested recognition of their right to strike before the courts of social jurisdiction”. the criterion he applied had already been established by the Provincial Court of Ourense, following the doctrine of the Constitutional Court.
Furthermore, the judge underlines that, in this case, “it is a criminal investigation, which is subject to the terms established by article 320 cpp”, therefore the failure of a defender to appear in the exercise of a right to strike “does not constitutes cause for suspension of the aforementioned terms and much less cause for extension of the instruction, with the corresponding damage (in the form of delay) that this positioning in favor of the right to strike that this instructor entails. “doesn’t recognize.” The letter also highlights “the fact that the strike called for by the lawyer concerns only the issues she defends as the lawyer on duty”, which, according to the magistrate, ”could find themselves in a situation of indefinite strike (the strike ). already lasts more than a year), given that the income deriving from the work shift constitutes a minimal part of the total and, therefore, a strike of this nature is not legal, since one can remain in this situation for an undoubtedly long period of time .”
What are the legal obligations of lawyers when it comes to appearing in court during a strike?
Title: The Intersection of Legal Obligations and Workers’ Rights: An Interview with Legal Expert Dr. María Soler
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome, Dr. Soler. Today, we’re discussing a rather intriguing case from Ourense where a lawyer was fined for failing to appear in court due to a strike. What are your initial thoughts on this incident?
Dr. María Soler (MS): Thank you for having me. This case raises some compelling issues regarding the balance between a lawyer’s responsibilities in the legal system and their rights as an employee. It touches on broader themes of ethical obligations and the legal framework surrounding workers’ rights, particularly in the context of strikes.
TNE: Absolutely, and it’s fascinating how this situation unfolded. The magistrate imposed a fine specifically because the lawyer did not comply with a court request. Can you elaborate on the legal implications of failing to appear in court?
MS: Certainly. In legal practice, appearing in court when summoned is not just a professional obligation; it is a duty embedded in the legal system. If a lawyer fails to appear, particularly as a representative or investigator for a client, it can halt proceedings and potentially harm the interests of the individual involved. The fine imposed here reflects that principle. The magistrate indicated that the lawyer was warned about possible sanctions, reinforcing the expectation of compliance.
TNE: The lawyer cited their right to strike as a reason for not appearing. However, the court found no legal provision protecting the right of lawyers specifically regarding striking in relation to their court obligations. Do you think there should be protections for lawyers in such situations?
MS: That’s a nuanced discussion. While labor rights, including the right to strike, are fundamental, legal professionals operate within a framework governed by rules and ethical standards. If the legal system allowed lawyers to avoid court appearances indefinitely under the guise of a strike, it could lead to significant disruptions. However, there may be a need for clearer guidelines on how legal duties intersect with labor rights, including when strikes are legally permissible.
TNE: So you’re suggesting a potential reform? What might that look like?
MS: Yes, I believe there’s an opportunity for reform. One approach could involve developing a specific legal framework that outlines situations where a lawyer can exercise the right to strike while ensuring clients’ rights and the integrity of the legal proceedings are protected. This might include advance notice requirements, specifically ensuring that cases are not unduly delayed and clients are informed of potential consequences.
TNE: That’s an interesting perspective. What do you believe this case signals for the legal community in general?
MS: This case serves as a critical reminder of the responsibilities that legal professionals bear. It also highlights a growing tension between labor rights and professional obligations, something that could become more pronounced as discussions about workers’ rights evolve in different sectors. The legal community must engage in conversations about how best to balance these interests without jeopardizing the judicial process.
TNE: A fascinating point indeed. Lastly, as we close, what key takeaway should both legal professionals and clients derive from this event?
MS: Both parties should recognize that the legal profession has unique obligations that are crucial to ensuring justice and fairness. For legal professionals, understanding the boundaries of their rights in relation to their duties is essential. For clients, it’s important to be aware that while their lawyers may advocate for workers’ rights, those rights do not supersede the legal obligations owed to the court and to their clients. Communication about such issues is vital.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Soler. Your insights have shed valuable light on the complexities of this case and the overarching themes within the legal field. We appreciate your time.
MS: Thank you for the discussion. It’s always a pleasure to dive into these important topics.