[ad_1]
The report of Tyra lawyer, raped by a colleague after a summer party with the law firm and who later lost his job, attracted a lot of attention.
DN revealed, among other things, that the law firm had repeated in several recorded conversations that the reason for Tyra's appointment to probation was not extended, was that this agency did not consider it sufficient to take a decision.
Tyra was later ill during parts of her examination appointment following the rape.
However, in legal terms, the Agency could have proposed an appointment to a project or a fixed-term job and thus acquire additional evidence, according to the experts interviewed by DN.
In an email to DN wrote the management of the law firm last week:
"The decision of the agency not to take the test to a permanent job has nothing to do with the crime of which she was a victim, but for other reasons, the agency can not comment. "
For several days, DN asked the CEO and his shareholders, by telephone and text, to ask additional questions. None of them responded.
Read more: The sentence handed down – the judge of the rapists demands the revocation of the trial
Previously, the Secretary General of the Law Society did not wish to comment on the content of the DN article. When DN joins him on Tuesday, she tells him that she has made direct contact with the competent law firm.
– I have written to the law firm and I have received an answer that I accept and which I am satisfied. But I do not intend to report on it in Dagens Nyheter or any other newspaper.
Do you think the law firm acted correctly?
– I will not comment. I have a base that makes me no reason to criticize the law firm.
The Disciplinary Board of the Bar investigates cases in which it is suspected that a lawyer has been found guilty of violating or violating good lawsuits. The Secretary General of the Company may open such an investigation, which has been conducted several times by Anne Ramberg.
Is it appropriate to bring the case before the disciplinary board?
– No I have made this decision and act in the same way as in other contexts of this type. I decided not to move on. There is no objective reason to do it.
Why?
"The company's job is to supervise law enforcement agencies, which means we have to make sure they comply with the rules of good law enforcement, which means that they comply with the law." existing legislation and directives.
Is there not also an ethical aspect that goes beyond the laws and ethics of law?
– As I said, there is no reason to initiate a disciplinary procedure. The task of society and my task is to apply the law and the law.
Anne Ramberg does not want to take a closer look at what emerged from the communication with the agency. For her part, she believes that those who have turned to a law firm should know more. On Twitter, she criticized former president of the Law Society, Bengt Ivarsson, who repeatedly questioned the law firm's behavior and encouraged a further review of the sector.
Read more: "The act of the law firm is totally unacceptable"
– If you criticize a behavior, you should have the facts. The entire article from the DN suggests that the law firm has done something disgusting. That's what the comments are about. My point of view is that you should have a foundation, she says.
Several lawyers, members of the Bar, would have disagreed with your behavior in social media, according to DN. They interpret your answers when you take a stand for the agency. What do you think?
– I do not think so. I find that all members have the full right to express their views and express it, as I do.
In social media, Anne Ramberg also often expresses her support and encouragement to one of the law firm partners. However, she does not perceive that this changes her behavior.
"It certainly does not concern this case," she said.
Fotonot: The colleague was sentenced by the district court to two years in prison for rape. The court hearing will end on December 3.
Source link
