How much rot is in the Slovenian legal profession?

Following stories like this one, which we present on this website, one wonders whether people here can even trust the rule of law and the lawyers they hire and pay dearly. It is true that we generally live in a time of deep crisis of trust, when one authority after another has fallen and all the moral pillars that hold modern society together have collapsed. Therefore it is important that on every social front there are individuals who would begin to think about moral transformation. But where to start?

The story of the fraud that Federico Pignatelli suffered at the hands of his lawyer Tjaše Andree Prosenc is just one of many that we can trace. After the story began to be uncovered on this website, numerous people who experienced similar injustices came forward. Yet the Wolfove 1 case stands out because from all the facts it is clear that a fraud occurred. Nevertheless, many within the legal and judicial ranks remain willing to help Tjaše Andree Prosenc.

And how did the notorious lawyer defend herself in the disciplinary proceedings before Odvetniška zbornica? The complaint included very clear documents proving the betrayal of the client. The key document is the only legitimate written power of attorney to the lawyer with instructions to hold the company's meeting of Eurocapital. This is the only document on which the decision about that original sin can rest, when on the basis of forged documents the mother was entered into the court register instead of the company's only legitimate representative.

The lawyer presented the following story to the disciplinary and ethics committee. She claimed that her intention was only, "to finally align the formal status with the factual one". She convinced them that Doris Mayer had been the true owner all along and in fact the one who should run the company with all powers and obligations. The decision to record the elderly lady in the register instead of her son was allegedly communicated to her and the notary by Doris Mayer herself.

But Doris Mayer testified under oath in court that she never did anything like that and was herself shocked when she learned that her lawyer had duped her. She was even more appalled when she was told that Tjaše Andree Prosenc had her sign documents that were not related to denationalization proceedings, which were the only matters for which Doris Mayer had authorized her lawyer.

The key point in the entire case is the following. This is not word against word. It is written documents against the word of the lawyer. The only document that bears the certified signatures of the only two official and legitimate partners of the company, that is Federica in Luigija Pignatellija, is perfectly clear. There is not a single other document by which the brothers renounced their share or declared a change of decision about who is the company's legitimate representative.

How is it possible that Odvetniška zbornica even accepted the idea that there can be a difference between official documentation and the actual state of ownership? That on paper the owners would be Federico and Luigi Pignatelli, while the actual owner would be their mother. What does that even mean? Are there people at the top of the legal organization for whom it is perfectly normal that two parallel worlds exist – the world of official documents and the world of the "actual" state? Was this common practice in the Slovenian transition, which may have had a criminal tint, with lawyers playing an important role?

Were the lawyers who participated in the disciplinary and ethics committee of Odvetniška zbornica really so naive that they fully believed the defense of their colleague Tjaše Andree Prosenc? Why did they not want to listen to the complainant Federico Pignatelli? Were they afraid of the influence and position held by the notorious lawyer?

Or is it simply that a crow does not peck out a crow's eyes and they watch each other's backs, because many of them are burdened by their own shadows and never know when it will be their turn? What then is the point of professional associations here, which in developed Western countries take great care to safeguard the reputation of their profession, as they understand how crucial trust is?

One would really think that there is a lot of rot in Slovenian law practice when following such stories. Who will begin the long and necessary process of moral cleansing of the Slovenian legal profession? That would be the first and most important step toward restoring trust in the rule of law.