In the sixth and final part of Patrick’s series, he examines the growing subjugation of the legal profession, questioning how the logic of suspicion and compliance collides with the fundamental duty of lawyers to defend, advise and stand between the individual and the power of the state…

Subjugation in the legal profession

Hippocrates’ sermon.

The law on euthanasia – Everyone is free to decide when to die, and it is not a question of the “right to die with dignity”, because dignity has nothing to do with it, as if we did not live with dignity, but could achieve this state when we pass into the afterlife. Although this digression has nothing to do with the subject directly, it helps to put the context into perspective.

It is not for the doctor to administer death to his patient, which is understandable because otherwise he would be violating his Hippocratic oath, and it is honourable; we have, moreover, abolished the death penalty.

The same applies to solicitors: they cannot be the source of a declaration of suspicion; they cannot spontaneously report their clients to the state because they feel that their clients have behaved reprehensibly. Any self-respecting solicitor knows that if they are called upon, it is not innocently. Apart from the fact that reprehensible intentions are precisely part of a solicitor’s business, as the profession requires (see below).

Maître Soulez-Larrivière, “L’Avocature” The Legal Profession”

I defend widows and orphans, but also murderers.

How can you defend a bastard, a crook, a criminal…?” It was to answer this oft-asked question that Daniel Soulez Larivière wrote this reference book, first published in 1982, then reissued in 1990 and 1995, and completely revised and updated for this new edition.

Reviewing the turbulent history of the profession and drawing on his personal experience and that of many colleagues in France and abroad, he highlights the dynamics of the profession and paints a picture of the paradox at the heart of the concept of advocacy: lawyers not only lubricate the social machine but, charged with ensuring their clients adhere to the judicial system, and therefore to the state, they are agents of public order, even when they violently criticise institutions.

But in an increasingly legalised society dominated by economics, international armies of lawyers possess the complex operating instructions for modern societies. Today, they are invading the traditional French bar. It will have to undergo a revolution.

The right of every individual to be defended by a solicitor.

The sacrosanct principle of justice, enshrined in human rights, is that everyone has the right to a defence, the right to a solicitor to represent them, but also to advise, guide and defend them, even against the indefensible. Maître Dupont Moretti will even be described as an “Acquitattor”, such is his excellence in the art of being defended, and at best being acquitted in law, if not in conscience.

Everyone will judge this description for themselves, but in matters of justice and law, it determines first and foremost the possibility of being defended, rich or poor, guilty or innocent.

We are dealing with the technicalities, the science of law beyond good and evil.

It is not for a solicitor to make a statement of suspicion, because in doing so, he is no longer doing his job. He is like a doctor who administers a lethal solution to his patient. Quite apart from the fact that the client is under investigation for money laundering, how could he be defended with confidence by someone whose peers have made a declaration of suspicion against him, and for which he must defend himself?

It is less a case of the snake biting its own tail than an absurdity linked to ignorance due to a lack of intellectual hygiene that we are unable to recognise, or even admit to ourselves, in legal matters.

There is also the “subject”, who, if charged with non-compliance with the scrupulous implementation of AML rules, in short, for failure to report suspicions, may have to be defended by a solicitor who is himself subject to the same rules.

It is a bit like a criminal being defended by another criminal.

Admittedly, I am exaggerating, but this illustrates the limit, or rather the absence of limits, a porosity in the boundaries between professions that reflects a misunderstanding of the role assigned to solicitors in society, given the role of regulated professional that the State intends them to play.

What would be the risk of removing lawyers from the list of subjects?

That all financial criminals would go through a law firm to carry out their misdeeds? Especially in a country where there is nearly one police officer for every 70 inhabitants, and where, due to a numerus clausus, there are 33 lawyers. This seems unlikely, unless the white-collar criminal is a masochist.

And if that were the case, apart from lawyers who defend widows and orphans, but also murderers, the boundary would then be clear enough for the supervisory authorities, the State in the exercise of its sovereign power of control and sanction, to use its inspectors, controllers and other financial sleuths , in full knowledge of the facts, to apprehend those guilty of financial malpractice, without undermining the noble profession of solicitor, robe oblige.

Conclusion

Our society, which used to be made up of industrialists, farmers, workers, scientists and engineers, has become a society of inspectors, controllers, capital controllers and waste controllers with green, yellow or brown bins, depending on what we are offered to consume.

I was a banker for 30 years, raised on financial markets, wealth management and corporate credit, and when we did our “banking tour” as young interns fresh out of prestigious schools or universities, those were the only professions we encountered.

Today, being a banker means being a compliance officer, a white-collar policeman who checks the inflow and outflow of capital recorded in their books.

There was a time when bank controllers, or “bank inspectors”, were graduates of the prestigious École Polytechnique and École Nationale d’Administration, and even they couldn’t get inside the head of Jérôme Kerviel, a French options and futures trader who recorded the biggest financial loss in the history of finance, which, in the country of Molière and Voltaire, is worth noting.

How can young inspectors, however intelligent they may be, at Tracfin or any other body responsible for combating money laundering, reasonably put themselves in the shoes of major financial criminals?

And if all these inspectors and controllers can do so, since it is their job, how can subjects do it better, when their job is completely different?

So, like Josh Randall, I am free to engage in this activity of bounty hunting, under the contradictory, even arbitrarily authoritarian term “subject”, “in the name of the law”, even if, based on my statements of suspicion about others, about my clients, I would be a good “subject”.

But if I don’t get any benefit or reward out of it, like Josh Randall, at least I won’t get a fine, if I’m naturally naive, doubting everything, and never suspicious of my neighbours, as civic duty requires.

Patrick LAURE
Secrétaire Particulier
+33 6 35 45 27 02
laurepatrick@wanadoo.fr

**The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and may change over time. Readers should consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to their situation. The author and publisher are not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.