Lawyers have to remain professional

Lawyers have to remain professional

Little progress has been made in the police's attempt to find
Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, son of former president Soeharto,
while more controversy has arisen with the questioning of Tommy's
lawyer for allegedly misleading the police. The following is an
excerpt from an interview with noted lawyer Nursyahbani
Katjasungkana.

Question: Could you comment on the questioning of lawyer Juan
Felix Tampubolon in regard to information he gave police
concerning the underground bunker at Tommy's home?

Answer: Anyone has the potential to violate the law. (But)
there needs to be some criteria to declare that someone has
violated a ruling. In the case of Juan Felix, all lawyers will
try to do their best to defend their clients because their
clients pay them to do so.

But the way lawyers handle a case has something to do with
professionalism and ethics. There are rules to obey.

Lawyers must not tell lies about their clients, but this also
depends on the condition that their clients do not lie to them.

When lawyers do not know something about their clients because
their clients have not told them, nobody can force the lawyers to
say something.

Q: How do you see the role of the lawyers in Tommy's case?

A: We have to know the duties of lawyers or legal advisors.
As advisors they have to advise clients to obey the law.
Therefore it is not right if a lawyer advises a client, for
instance, to flee.

Nonetheless, there must be professional distance between
lawyers and their clients. I don't see such professionalism
between Tommy or the Soeharto family and the lawyers.

In the case of Tommy, it was not quite right when one of
Tommy's lawyers said that he knew where Tommy was but that his
client refused to go to jail because there was no guarantee for
his safety.

At that time, however, Tommy and his lawyers might have been
confused whether to request a review of his case or file an
appeal for clemency from the President. Because both actions are
very different. Requesting a review means he must go to jail
first. Filing an appeal for clemency would mean an admittance of
guilt.

But by protecting Tommy at that time, it was obvious that the
lawyers were attempting to halt the execution (of arrest).

How do you see the contribution of the poor judiciary system
to developments of this case?

Once, I learned about a verdict from the media even before it
was made known (to my client). Regardless of pressure from any
party, I know the prosecutor's office is too slow in anticipating
any possibilities, so that's why Tommy could escape.

Q: What impacts does this case have on lawyers?

A: There are positive and negative impacts.

The positive impact is that legal advisors must learn from
this case in that they must always work professionally and
proportionally. Second, legal advisors should also learn how to
handle cases loaded with political nuances.

The negative impact is that the police may easily accuse
lawyers for hiding something when in fact lawyers are not lying.

Q: With respect to the interrogation of Juan Felix, do you think
he can be named a suspect?

A: As I said, everyone has the potential to violate the law. But
in his case there should be solid evidence. I don't think the
police can use Article 216 of the Criminal Code, which they
invoked to interrogate Juan Felix, because the article refers to
the main suspect, in this case, Tommy, and not Juan.

It is likely that (Juan Felix) really did not have any idea
(about the bunker). This means that there should first be
evidence to prove that he told lies, or whether it was his client
who provided him with misleading information.

Q: Have you ever experienced clients providing you with
misleading information?

A: In the mid 1980s I was legal advisor for a man accused of
robbery. I later learned that it was a hoax. I withdrew from the
case immediately when I found out he was lying.

The then chairman of the Honor Council for Ethics in the Legal
Profession and the Indonesian Bar Association (Ikadin) vehemently
rebuked me because it is not ethical to abandon clients during
court hearings.

But I decided to quit the case. I could not defend someone who
had told me lies. My client could have complained about my
resignation to the council, but he did not. (I. Christianto)