Shahram Dini's Busy Week - 10 letters!

A Geneva whistleblower wonders why she has been bombarded with TEN SEPARATE LETTERS from Shahram Dini this week and why he is only now responding to concerns raised about lawyers since 2018.

It seems suspiciously close to the recent submission of the whistleblower’s 68-page appeal to the Cour de Justice against allegedly sham malicious prosecution and convictions. This appeal highlighted that Dini had taken no meaningful action to address concerns about Geneva lawyers who seemed to be working against her best interests.

She also wonders why eight letters were sent by registered post and two by regular post. Coincidentally, responses to complaints about lawyers in what she describes as a sham malicious prosecution were notifications that her complaints have been 'filed' - apparently without the input of the Bar Association Committee or without consideration for the evidence. Since – for some reason - these lawyers apparently didn’t even inform her of her victims’ rights, let alone ensure they were respected, she has formally requested that all the complaints be considered together to determine the common factor. For example, are Olivier Jornot or Clement Emery (Ministère public) involved, and are there political factors at play that have led to apparently systemic challenges for the whistleblower?

Having received written evidence that she has been blacklisted (legal) since August 22nd 2013 she asks who is responsible for this and why is Dini apparently downplaying it. Is this a common occurrence in Geneva – the blacklisting of whistleblowers and subsequent alleged denial of independent legal representation?

Blanket Filing & 'Presidential Filing of Serious Complaints

The whistleblower has repeatedly raised concerns about the impartiality of Dini, especially regarding the potential implications for the whistleblower's appeal within the same Geneva judiciary the Bar Commission he oversees forms part of. Furthermore, complaints about the Attorney-General, Jornot (a member of the same political party as Dini), have been referred back to the Ministère public by the Swiss Attorney-General's Office. The whistleblower suspects that Dini's actions, or lack of actions until last week, may support a narrative that the whistleblower is responsible for the perceived lack of legal representation, complicating her access to justice.

The whistleblower claims that her evidence is conclusive and supported by thirteen files in the Cour de Justice, including relating to the Bar Commission and Geneva lawyers.

Most noteworthy is lawyer Me Clement Emery's involvement as a recipient of the whistleblower’s letters and evidence, addressed to the Ministère public and then forwarded to him - by a certain member of the Ministère public. This raises conflict-of-interest issues due to familial ties to the whistleblower’s case in which his father PASCAL EMERY features. This could indicate breaches of confidentiality and impartiality, undermining the standards set forth in the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code and the European Convention on Human Rights. Apparently, Dini’s response to this was that Clement Emery isn’t registered as a lawyer any more since he’s a prosecutor!

Me NMM was forced upon the whistleblower by the Ministère public just before she received two notifications of convictions by Lorena Henry - whom she has never met. Lorena Henry has also been sent emails with Clement Emery also in copy, further calling into question her impartiality. Me NMM recused herself to the Bar Commission and the prosecutor, Lorena Henry, finally admitted that the appointment was unjustified.  Me NMM’s costs (for 11.5 hours of work) were approved by Henry’s office and apparently paid by legal aid. However, in spite of the intervention by Me Vincent Spira on behalf of the Bar Commission, there was no consideration for the whistleblower's right to independent legal representation in the handling of her case or no consideration of her rights. The whistleblower has discovered more evidence relating to this case, and it seems that Me NMM may only have been provided with the part of the file and may have written to Lorena Henry to express concerns. However, lawyers such as Me NMM and Me SS, another lawyer force appointed by the Ministère public (and paid by the state), must know that such forced appointments must be justified in law.

Although Dini wrote that another lawyer, Me AM, was subject to a 'separate procedure' following the whistleblower's complaints of working against her best interests after failing to advise that his father was a former head of state in the same party as the Emerys, the whistleblower was charged 200 chf so that professional secrecy of the lawyer, Me AM, could be lifted to allow him to pursue further fees against her. A letter the whistleblower has obtained from that lawyer to Jornot makes clear it's why he's leaving, approximately eight months after the conclusions of the first prosecutor were overdue and three months after she had left the Ministère public. The whistleblower is still waiting for evidence of a single action he took in her best interests, but provided several examples of how his actions worked against her best interests.

Me Françoise Markarian, the opposition lawyer, not only didn't have a valid procuration when she filed was she seemed to admit was a prosecution designed to stop the whistleblower, but she was sent confidential documents by the Tribunal Penal addressed to Judge Mascotto. Questions over her dual representation of conflicting entities, namely the International School of Geneva and its pension fund remain unanswered and these issues only represent the tip of the iceberg of concerns raised about this lawyer. Dini writes that these concerns have been 'presidentially' filed.

The Geneva Police Commandant apparently took lengthy concerns about another Geneva lawyer, Me AB, to the Bar Commission. Me AB’s son - another Geneva lawyer - tried to negotiate a Non-Disclosure Agreement, apparently to restrict the complainant's legal rights. What has Dini done with this referral from the Geneva Police Commandant?

Another lawyer Me JM, failed to obtain a copy of the file of allegedly malicious complaints about the whistleblower, so it’s no surprise that she allegedly did nothing to represent her client – except claiming to bypass official channels by informally speaking to an anonymous policeman and contradicting the letters of the Geneva Police Commandant, Monica Bonfanti, who has repeatedly confirmed that the whistleblower’s criminal complaints are subject to ongoing criminal proceedings. This self-admitted ‘friend’ of Jornot’s has also apparently escaped scrutiny.

Me SS withdrew representation abruptly the same day he consulted with a potential key witness's lawyer, which raised questions about his commitment to the complainant's interests. The witness apparently subsequently settled with the school.  His unilateral actions in instructing the Geneva Police to record the complainant's criminal complaints as ‘main courante’ was also surprising.

Although Me PG has passed away, his role should be examined in the context of the whole case, given his close links with Jornot and other players, his informal communication with the prosecutor and his handling of data.

Updates on two lawyer cases relating to a civil case and dating back to 2016 and 2017 arrived by regular post this week. Why and why now? These cases should certainly be considered in the context of a complete investigation by the Bar Commission Committee, especially as one lawyer changed her position after offering the whistleblower a financial incentive to move her case with her from Lavive to OHER – where she became a partner. Her initial submissions to the Tribunal prud’hommes omitted key evidence and included allegedly corrupt psychiatric reports which were gifted to the opposition without consent and against the whistleblower's best interests - to be subsequently used against her in court. Amongst other things, this capable lawyer could have ensured access to justice from 2016, but she withdrawal from representation after a failed conciliation hearing and it seems that Dini will not be providing any data or evidence that may help the whistleblower understand the reasons for her changed position at OHER as well as any other potential factors at play - including political ones.

Finally, another lawyer sent a stagiaire to attend a crucial hearing in the whistleblower’s civil case in 2017, failing to attend herself - amongst other things. The context of this is significant since it seemed that this lawyer was unable, rather than unwilling to represent the whistleblower’s best interests. The whistleblower wonders why Dini seems more focussed on this than the other serious cases, especially when this lawyer seemed to be one of the few who recognised the gravity of the situation back in 2016.

The whistleblower plans to write to all the lawyers implicated to enlighten them on the extent of the case. Perhaps some will be keen to share their perspectives, given the potential child protection implications.

In conclusion, the whistleblower calls on the Bar Commission Committee to robustly investigate the potential collusion and corruption within the Geneva legal framework rather than merely reviewing her serious complaints in isolation and apparently without consideration of the evidence.

If a lawyer intentionally misleads a client to secure payment for unwarranted services, shouldn't it be prosecuted as fraud? (Swiss Criminal Code (SCC) Article 146) Isn't a lawyer who mismanages client funds or charges for unnecessary work liable under SCC Article 158?