Robin Tampoe -- One Time Corby Lawyer -- Struck Off

This is Schapelle Corby related news. However, the main subject of this little post is Robin Tampoe; a one-time lawyer for Schapelle Corby.

Robin Tampoe (photo courtesy of here) became involved in the Corby case very early on. He provided pretty bad advice, in my opinion, because his own ego required that he piggy back on this case in order to make a name for himself by using someone else's legal predicament to further his career. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, this has backfired in a big way and has in fact ended his legal career as he has been struck off the role of legal practitioners.

The advice was indicative of someone not knowing the intricacies of the Indonesian legal system and also highlighted a substantial lack of understanding of the substantive law that applies in Indonesia. In this sense, the writing was on the wall for Corby as soon as Tampoe became involved. However, the advice is not the reason for his striking off, but rather his conduct as a lawyer and handling of client information.

It was certainly a Forrest Gump kind of a moment in the type "stupid is as stupid does". Simply, Tampoe came into possession of confidential information which he then divulged to the world on TV. This information related to prior criminal convictions among members of the family. After being dumped from the Corby legal team he then went on to add insult to injury by disparaging them in the documentary, "Schapelle Corby - The Hidden Truth", by calling the family "trash".

The Legal Services Commissioner initiated the action based on an allegation that Tampoe breached client confidentiality. In essence, he failed to uphold the lawyer - client privilege that certain communications are subject to. In a written judgment of Justice Roslyn Atkinson of the Queensland Legal Practice Tribunal, Tampoe was found guilty of professional misconduct. Atkinson then ordered that Tampoe be struck off the roll.

On a side note. It is interesting to see that in the current Manohara case two of Indonesia's senior lawyers, Todung Mulya Lubis and OC Kaligis, have left the legal teams of Prince Tengku Temenggong Mohammad Fakhry and Manohara Odelia Pinot respectively, and then gone on to make some disparaging remarks about their former clients relating to their respective intents to resolve that matter. I wonder, any ethics or professional misconduct issues there?

Manohara Odelia Pinot -- Part II

Here I was consciously not writing about the Manohara (photo courtesy of R. Berto Wedhatama / JP) case and I have now written two posts in a row on it. It is a fascinating story as there are so many parallel lines to pursue. For example, how much protection do Indonesian Embassies provide to Indonesian citizens resident overseas and in trouble or more specifically the lawyer for the prince withdrawing from the case and then publicly criticizing the intentions of his former client.

On the embassy front, the reality is that embassies will always be criticized for never doing enough. In this case, the Manohara vs. the Prince is in essence a domestic dispute that has escalated allegedly into violence. I would argue that the violence is extreme if it involves slashing of Manohara with razor blades. Nevertheless, as I noted in the first post, these are issues that will be adduced at trial and with, I am guessing, photographic evidence of the crimes / violence claimed.

However, and despite the protestations of Commission I of the House of Representatives, embassies are sometimes unable to provide the necessary assistance. Yusron Izha Mahendra, Chair of Commission I cites the example of abused foreign migrant workers, particularly maids, however most of this abuse remains unknown until such time as it can no longer be hidden; the migrant worker is so severely abused that they need medical attention or they die. At this point the embassy can really only facilitate the repatriation of the body and family members to and from the country concerned. And, assuming the family wants to take legal action, facilitate that as well by connecting the family to local legal representation.

This is not to say that the Indonesian Embassy's performance in this case was beyond reproach, to the contrary, however Manohara's allegations of being ignored by the embassy is her side of the story. It goes without saying that the Indonesian Embassy in Malaysia is going to have a different take on how the events transpired. Hopefully, there can be good come from this and the procedures can be tightened and improved so that any future occurrences can be better handled and resolved more quickly.

Interestingly, the latest statement from the Kelantan royal family is that Manohara's flight was not so much an escape from evil but an agreed return home. It would seem that some of Manohara's statements would seem to agree. Although, she has not backed of the abuse claims so it remains to be seen how this plays out in this respect. There is also some intrigue as there are claims that not only were Singaporean police involved but there was FBI involvement as well. The FBI involvement is presumably because Manohara retains US citizenship.

On the lawyer front. Todung Mulya Lubis, a highly respected Indonesian lawyer, has withdrawn his services as legal counsel to the Kelantan family. According to The Jakarta Post the reason was that "there was no will from the family to settle the problem amicably." Now, most people would be all for amicable settlements however this hardly seems to be a case where an amicable settlement is ever likely to be achieved in light of the serious charges being levelled at the Prince by his wife.

I wonder whether the public statements attributed to Lubis prejudice the case of his former client. I have no problem with a lawyer withdrawing their legal services when they no longer feel they can represent their client to the best of their ability. It is a different kettle of fish to withdraw your services and then go on the record that your former client has no intention of settling the case. This would seem to suggest that there is merit to Manohara's claims and that the best course of action is to pay out and be done with it. Perhaps The Jakarta Post selectively quoted Lubis and the above quote is not the sum total of what was said.

It would seem that an amicable settlement in this case would be agreement to a quickie divorce (which should not be any trouble) and a financial transaction in order that the aggrieved party feels like they have been taken care of (or their silence is paid for). An amicable settlement might be a good PR strategy, particularly when all signs are pointing to this dragging on and getting even messier in the weeks and months ahead.

Yet, it would be a sad day when domestic violence can be rectified with a swift transfer of funds. People who beat their spouses must not be allowed to get away with paying cash for their crimes. If the abuse is proved then they must be subject to the criminal penalties that apply. If the rich can pay their respective way out of crime then we as a community are moving further away from the ideal of equality before the law.

It seems that the idea of a settlement is intended to avoid any criminal prosecution for the alleged abuse. However, if the Prince maintains that he did not abuse Manohara then a criminal trial where Manohara would be called on to prove the abuse might be in the Prince's best interests. Once again, this assumes no abuse took place.

However, if there was abuse then a settlement agreement with watertight confidentiality provisions and a statement that admits no guilt, may in fact be a good option.

The idea that this is going to be a strain on Indonesian and Malaysian relations is a stretch. There are far more interesting happenings that are likely to strain the bilateral relationship like allegations that an Indonesian warship was within seconds of firing on a Malaysian warship in the area surrounding the contested waters of Ambalat.

The saga continues.

PERADI vs. KAI

This should be a real hammer and tong battle to the death! The recent establishment of the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (Kongres Advokat Indonesia / KAI) to rival the previous leader of the pack, PERADI (Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia / Indonesian Advocate Association), is sure to be spectator sport of the highest order! The President was scheduled to open the Congress but PERADI complained in writing and then the President mysteriously fell ill (probably some bad sate).

The battle should see a few families pitted against each other in the heat of battle. However, although possibily amusing, it is not the family angle that is interesting but the legal ones. The Advocates Law (No. 18 of 2003) explicitly requires the establishment of a single peak bar association to represent Indonesian advocates. This had been thought to be PERADI.

Interestingly though, the eight bar associations that existed prior to the establishment of PERADI have remained in existence. The question in my mind has always been why were they not dissolved either by default with the establishment of PERADI or by decree or law by the government? PERADI from the outset needed to be above the day-to-day fray in terms of not pandering to any particular interest and remaining politics free. Any failure to do so was always destined to lead to the development of a rival organization.

It is being reported that the KAI claims that 10,000 of the 15,000 registered and licensed lawyers are ready to bail on PERADI and join up with the KAI. If this were true then the ding dong battle I was hoping to see might not eventuate as the KAI seems to have the numbers for a spill! A no confidence motion in the current PERADI leadership and then replacing them would also work. However, the KAI have adopted a position that PERADI is illegitimate and that the KAI is now the legitimate single bar assosciation as envisaged in the Advocates Law.

As I said the legal issues are certainly to be interesting as this is likely to see the Constitutional Court become involved.

I wonder if Todung Mulya Lubis joins KAI does he get his practice certificate (license) back or what?

I will be watching and reporting if any fun stuff happens.

Todung Mulya Lubis - Part II

I have been reading around as I do when there is a story that interests me! The TML story is one that interests me for a number of reasons. But prominent among these is that the decision to disbar the man seems excessive and it seems political and it sets a bad precedent. The decision has the hallmarks of a hatchet job...at least TML seems to agree with an assessment such as this one!

This is what TML is quoted as saying to the Asia Sentinel:

In a telephone interview with Asia Sentinel, Mulya Lubis called the decision “totally baseless and unlawful” and said he has little hope of winning an appeal.

“For me this is a conspiracy of corrupt lawyers who feel troubled and disturbed by my stand to play by the rules and consistently fight against corruption,” he said. “The judgment is outrageous and has killed my life, violated my right to practice law, and defied common sense and justice. I will appeal, but I am losing hope in the integrity of the Bar Association. The legal profession is rotten.”

The decision although a ban for life and in spite of the fact that TML himself feels like there is little hope on appeal, I have a sneaky suspicion that he will not be lost forever to the legal profession either here or Indonesia. If PERADI is seen to be too political and too concerned with vested interests, then it is going to come under pressure to either reform or be pushed aside.

There is a new advocates association in the making with a preliminary congress style meeting to be held in the very near future. So, perhaps this might not be the end after all for TML.

Anyone interested in this topic of ethics and ethical violations by Indonesian lawyers only need do a Google search to find that there are lawyers still practicing in Indonesia who have been alleged to have committed as serious, if not more serious, violations of the code of ethics...If you cannot find it on Google then drop me a note and I will drop some names for you to search for!

Todung Mulya Lubis

Todung Mulya Lubis is one of Indonesia's most recognized advocates and has represented many big names both local and foreign in the courts of Indonesia. He has been an avid campaigner for human rights, transparency international, freedom of the press and myriad number of other issues has lost his license to practice law in Indonesia.

Is this a simple case of a high profile law running foul of the government or other interests and then being silenced, or at least trying to be silenced, by taking away the right to practice law? Maybe if we were cynical enough as people to believe that such a thing remains possible in 2008!

The alleged breach is of Article 4(j), Article 3(b), and Article 6 of the Indonesian Advocates' Code of Ethics. These particular Articles deal with matters relating to conflict of interest and serving your client's interests. What is intriguing about this case is that the person who submitted the complaint to the Regional Honour Board for Jakarta was none other than Hotman Paris Hutapea.

Most people might have been salivating at the prospect of two of Indonesia's premier legal minds going at it tooth and nail if this had been the case of them being pitted against each other in a matter before the courts. The reality of one of them potentially losing their license does not have that same saliva-ability to it.

Without going into any serious analysis of the decision to strip Mulya Lubis of his license, it is worth pointing out that on face value it seems that Indonesia is in fact taking breaches of the Code of Ethics seriously if one of Indonesia's more senior advocates can fall foul of the system and be stripped of his license to practice.

Nevertheless, the decision to strip the man of his license to practice is harsh as this is the ultimate penalty available and in essence strips the man of the ability to earn a livelihood in his chosen profession. If a breach of the Code was proven then perhaps a temporary suspension of his license to practice and the suspension being permanently recorded on his professional record may have been sufficient. There were dissenting opinions in the judgment of the Regional Honour Board and it seems the dissent did not relate to the substance of the breach but rather the severity of the penalty imposed.

It is likely that Mulya Lubis will instruct his counsel to appeal the decision. He has this right! The decision is appellable to the Central Honour Board. However, my understanding is that any decision issued by the Central Honour Board is final and binding. If the Central Honour Board affirms the decision of the Regional Honour Board then Indonesia will have lost one of its senior advocates from its ranks.

However, it must be said that a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest and lawyers should understand when they have one. The advocate should then disclose the conflict of interest and recuse themselves from the matter. A failure to do so is a breach of the Code and is punishable. It is clear from the decision that the Regional Honour Board considers a breach of the conflict of interest provisions sufficiently serious to warrant the ultimate penalty!

The news on this case can be found here and here (in Indonesian). The case goes on!