Czech Republic: Attorney sues over fine for mentioning expert's allegedly Jewish origins

Attorney Petr Kočí has filed a lawsuit against a decision by the Czech Bar Association (Česká advokátní komora – ČAK) to fine him CZK 100 000 for claiming an expert witness was biased due to his allegedly Jewish origin. Kočí sent a press release to the Czech News Agency on 23 December 2013 claiming that the reasoning for the disciplinary measure is unclear and not subject to review, and he is asking the Administrative Court to overturn it.

Kočí was defending Lucie Šlégrová, a member of the right-wing extremist Workers’ Social Justice Party (DSSS), in a criminal proceedings over statements promoting anti-Semitism and Nazism she made at an assembly in Litvínov. During her trial before the District Court in Most, Kočí objected to the participation of expert witness Michal Mazel, justifying his objections, among other things, with reference to Mazel’s allegedly Jewish origins. 

Kočí and Šlégrová deduced Mazel’s alleged ethnicity from his surname, saying it was based on the Hebrew name "Moshe". The court rejected his objection as completely irrelevant, but it prompted a significant scandal at the time.

The ČAK disciplinary senate originally banned Kočí from working as an attorney for one year, but subsequently softened their decision to a fine of CZK 100 000. Kočí, however, disagrees with the fine as well.   

The attorney emphasizes that the chamber eventually agreed with him on a fundamental question:  According to the disciplinary appeals senate, the objection he raised based on the expert’s alleged ethnic origins was generally admissible given the subject matter of the expert’s research work. Kočí was ultimately fined because his objection was made in what the chamber called an inappropriate form.       

"If you read the reasoning, you cannot tell what specifically made my objection an undignified one. As for the part of the objection concerning the possible economic dependence of the expert witness on the police as a producer of expert testimonies, the decision is also silent," Kočí said. 

The attorney says the reasoning of the decision merely vaguely refers to a different, previous decision in a case that was ultimately overturned, which means it cannot be used as a precedent. He previously defended himself by saying that when performing the role of attorney, a client’s justified interests take precedence not only over the interests of attorney representing the client, but also take precedence over the interests of prosecutors and others involved in the judicial system; his administrative suit will be handled by the Municipal Court in Prague.