2.4.6 Attorneys and notaries In this field, we discussed 23 cases, which is somewhat fewer that in 2014, when we considered 39 such complaints. The share of founded complaints was 9.5 per cent. 2.4 JUSTICE The cases predominantly involved complaints claiming negligent provision of services or dissatisfaction with the work of attorneys (including complainants’ allegations that they were insufficiently informed about the legal and actual situations of their cases, assessments of the dispute, possible continuations of proceedings with legal remedies, particularly in cases of free legal aid), incorrect calculation of costs (involving an allegation that the client received no receipt upon payment stating which type of services were charged by the attorney), inappropriate conduct and disagreement with a decision of the disciplinary authorities of the Bar Association of Slovenia and other irregularities, including claims that attorneys are not inclined to file expediting legal remedies as per the ZVPSBNO, supposedly because these are not beneficial for the outcome of proceedings. Among the recommendations in the 2014 report, the Ombudsman commended all the efforts of the Bar Association of Slovenia regarding the adoption of measures to improve the transparency of the work of their disciplinary bodies, and encouraged the Association to provide efficient responses to irregularities in their sector through the efficient work of their disciplinary bodies, and to make swift and objective decisions regarding complaints filed against attorneys (recommendation no. 52). Unfortunately, certain cases that we considered, which are presented below, reveal that this recommendation has not been fully implemented (yet). The Bar Association of Slovenia publishes the composition of its disciplinary bodies and authorities for assessing violations of the Code of Professional Conduct of the Bar Association, data on reporting, decisions on final disciplinary measures, final opinions of the Ethics Committee and removals from the Register of Attorneys as per points 3, 4 or 9 of paragraph one and paragraph two of Article 30 of the Attorneys Act (ZOdv) on its website under section “Publications as per Articles 31 and 60 of the Attorneys Act” (Objave po 31. in 60. členu zakona o odvetništvu), which improves the transparency of attorneys’ work and of the Bar Association of Slovenia. The Bar Association of Slovenia must ensure these data are regularly updated within the deadlines determined by the ZOdv. Among the opinions of the Ethics Committee, we wish to particularly point out the finding on the violation of professional ethics by an attorney who charged disproportionate costs when recovering parking fees in the Republic of Croatia and was unable to explain her replies to counterparties’ objections conscientiously, since such issues occur in certain complaints submitted to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman also recommended that the Ministry of Justice suitably regulate pro bono aid from attorneys (also in the field of taxes) in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance (recommendation no. 51). With regard to this recommendation, the Government of the Republic of Slovenia explained that pro bono aid from attorneys was regulated by tax legislation. The statement of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia that it was aware of the importance of pro bono legal aid was encouraging, and that it would also examine the possibility of a systemic arrangement of pro bono aid in a separate regulation, which would be subject to broader public discussion. Unfortunately, with the exception of this assurance, we have no other information on possible progress in this field. It is also commendable that attorneys further comply with their decision to open their offices one day per year for free legal advice, and we cannot overlook the fact that many attorneys provide some of their services pro bono or grant discounts when charging for their services. 76 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 In dealing with individual complaints, we primarily addressed the Bar Association of Slovenia (OZS), as this was the case in previous years. We are pleased with their response to our inquiries. We particularly commend the Association’s finding that education is needed for qualitative representation or defence and that it has begun intensive preparations for training attorneys in various legal fields, including their respective responsibilities. The Ombudsman has no direct authority to take action with regard to individual attorneys, but takes measures when the circumstances of a case reveal that the OZS or its disciplinary authorities fail to implement public authorisations with due care. The grounds for the Ombudsman’s intervention at the OZS or its disciplinary authorities are thus given particularly when the Association fails to respond to an individual’s complaint or if the procedure for discussing the complaint by the disciplinary authorities takes too long. On this note, it must be stressed that the Ombudsman cannot seek legal remedies against the decisions of the Association’s disciplinary authorities and has no power to change their decisions. On the basis of certain cases considered in 2015, we determine that lengthy consideration of reports on alleged violations by attorneys is still problematic in practice. No later than 30 days from receiving notification of a violation, the disciplinary prosecutor is obliged to request the initiation of a disciplinary procedure if informed of the facts and evidence on the basis of which it is possible to justifiably conclude that the attorney, candidate attorney or trainee attorney violated their duties (paragraph one of Article 64 of the ZOdv) on the basis of a complaint submitted by an injured person, the Human Rights Ombudsman or in another way. We believe that the relevant obligation also applies if it is understood from the report that the reported action is not a disciplinary violation and it is not possible to justifiably conclude that the attorney violated their duties in the exercise of their profession, or if the action is of minor significance and no harmful consequences were incurred by the reporter, or if the disciplinary procedure is time-barred and the report must be rejected as per paragraph two of Article 37 of the Statute of the Bar Association of the Republic of Slovenia. Example: Attorney must not retain a client’s money In his letter to the Ombudsman, a complainant claimed that he regularly paid all the representation costs to his attorney, and the latter had later refused to pay the sum acknowledged by the court as reimbursement of the costs of the attorney’s services. On 17 December 2013, the complainant contacted the Bar Association of Slovenia (OZS), but received no reply. We wrote to the OZS several times for information on the course of this disciplinary procedure. On 18 August 2014, we received the explanation that the case had been forwarded to a disciplinary prosecutor on 11 February 2014 and the assurance that we would be informed of his measures. Following a new inquiry, we received a clarification on 17 October 2014 that the disciplinary prosecutor had filed a request to commence a disciplinary procedure against the attorney. We were then notified on 3 April 2015 that the hearing was scheduled for 7 April 2015, and on 8 June 2015, were informed that the disciplinary committee of first instance had already made its decision, although this was not yet final. On 12 October 2015, we received the OZS’s notification with the attached decisions of the disciplinary commissions of first and second instance. It was evident from the disciplinary decision that the disciplinary defendant, i.e. the attorney, had violated his duty when practising law because he was unduly retaining cash he received for his client. A disciplinary measure was imposed on the attorney, i.e. a fine in the amount of EUR 3,000. He was also obliged to pay a lump-sum fee for the costs of the procedure, i.e. EUR 300 for the first-instance procedure and EUR 200 for the second-instance procedure. The disciplinary procedure in this case took more than a year and a half from when the case was first reported to the finality of the decision. Since clients frequently wait for decisions of the Association’s disciplinary bodies before initiating other proceedings (e.g. compensation claims), it is particularly important that these procedures are completed swiftly. Lengthy procedures such as this, which according to the complainants’ information is not an exception, cannot be determined as being swift. We are certain that our inquiries also contributed to expediting the disciplinary procedure in the relevant case. 6.8-4/2014 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 77 2.4 JUSTICE On the basis of the summarised reply of the District State Prosecutor’s Office, the Ombudsman concluded that the complaint was founded. The Ombudsman’s intervention was successful; however, cases such as this should not occur at all. Apparently, the District State Prosecutor’s Office was responsible for the lack of response to the complainant (and the Ombudsman), and we assume that the Head of the District State Prosecutor’s Office has taken suitable measures (although it failed to inform the Ombudsman of this explicitly) in order to prevent such cases from recurring. To this end, we presented the complainant’s case in particular. 6.2-11/2015