Lawyers viewed as slaves to money and power
Todung Mulya Lubis, Lawyer, Jakarta
The confidence crisis in the accounting profession since the Enron debacle raises questions in other areas. Other professions are in the same boat: Physicians, lawyers, politicians and clerics. A code of conduct is no longer significant in the era of commercialization in which business, political and legal relations are dictated upon by commercial principles.
In Indonesia this crisis of confidence in accountants and lawyers has been going on for quite a while. Accountants have long been viewed as mere extensions of their client companies, while lawyers are more frequently viewed as the slaves to power and money.
Public disappointment with accountants is clear from the cynicism about financial statements and prospectuses of companies wishing to go public. As for lawyers, the public openly portrays them as part of the judicial mafia. This accusation is glaring and direct. Just imagine that lawyers, a profession deemed noble, have suddenly become part of the outlaw. This is really horrible.
What is increasingly disappearing from the profession of lawyers is honesty. Lawyers, without the slightest burden, advise their clients to lie in such a way that it is often seen that a suspect or a defendant finds himself trapped within lies which he/she can no longer hold on to.
It is often forgotten that one lie will breed another and that over time there will be a mountain of lies. On the other hand, lawyers, knowing or unknowingly, have trifled with people's reason and common sense. The collapse of Enron is a fresh example that lies will crumble against truth.
In the case of the non-budgetary funds of the State Logistics Agency (Bulog) now on trial, many must share the same feeling that there are so many illogical statements, which has been explicitly described as public lies.
The professional code of conduct goes unread. A lawyer can always be the attorney of two suspects whose cases are related, without fear of a conflict of interest. In the case of Bulog's non-budgetary funds, for example, Rahardi Ramelan's attorney is the same as that of former president B.J. Habibie, while a conflict of interest here is always possible.
In a probe into a case of major violations of human rights in East Timor, the team of attorneys for the Indonesian Military is assigned to help all army officers, from the military resort commanders to the military commander in chief and former military commander in chief and coordinating minister of politics and security.
The foreign minister, surprisingly, is also represented by the same team. In terms of policies alone, the potential of a clash of interest is very big as it is always possible that the policy of the foreign ministry differs from that of the defense and security ministry. Lawyers, however, do not seem to be concerned with the potential of this clash of interests.
In the case of Tommy Soeharto, for example, reports said there was a meeting of Tommy Soeharto's lawyers with the late Justice Syafiuddin Kartasasmita, seemingly without the slightest awareness on the part of the lawyers that there was anything wrong with this meeting. So the prohibition to see a judge, which is ex-parte in nature, does not seem to be understood by many lawyers. Not surprisingly, many lawyers come in and out of a judge's room without the presence of the lawyers of their clients' opponents.
A court of law is where justice is sought. It is here that the process of seeking justice must also be fair and conform to the due process of the law. If a judicial process is in itself unfair, the justice produced will never be fair to the losing party. All parties will think that honesty has gone and eventually the court will no longer be respected.
The question is how to bring back honesty. A good hint came from the report on the Enron case in The Economist edition of March 9, titled Why honesty is the best policy.