President
PERADI - Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia
Gedung Ariobimo Sentral, Mezzanine Floor
Jl. HR Rasuna Said Blok X-2 Kav. 5
Jakarta 12950
Indonesia

Fax.: +62 21 522 6185


16 June 2008

Dear President

We are writing on behalf of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) to seek further information on the decision of the Dewan Kehormatan Daerah DKI Jakarta Perhimpurum Advocat Indonesia (PERADI) to permanently revoke the advocate-practice license of Todung Mulya Lubis.  Mr Lubis’ license was reportedly revoked on the grounds of an alleged conflict of interest.
  
In its role as a dual membership organisation, comprising 30,000 individual lawyers and over 195 Bar Associations and Law Societies, the IBA influences the development of international law reform and shapes the future of the legal profession. Its Member Organisations cover all continents. The IBAHRI works across the association, helping to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a just rule of law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession worldwide.

Reports received by the IBAHRI suggest that the decision of PERADI to revoke Mr Lubis’ license may be based on considerations other than the merits of that claim. Reports further indicate that the decision could have been taken in retaliation against Mr Lubis as a result of his prominent role in a number of human rights cases in Indonesia.

Specifically, it has been alleged that the decision relates to a complaint filed by Mr Lubis and his firm, Lubis, Santosa & Maulana, to the Supreme Court of Indonesia in December 2007, criticising the conduct of judges in a civil lawsuit involving the Salim family and PT Garuda Pancaata (GPA).

Reports indicate that the complaint made by Mr Lubis was filed in response to a series of events relating to his representation of the Salim family in a civil case brought against it by the GPA. As a result of Mr Lubis’ representation of the Salim family in this case, a complaint was reportedly filed against him by the GPA on the grounds of an alleged conflict of interest. However, we understand that the complaint filed by the GPA against Mr Lubis was filed more than a year after the GPA became aware of Mr Lubis’ representation of the Salim Family and only after Mr Lubis objected to the use of a confidential report in that litigation. Based on this information, it has been suggested that the complaint against Mr Lubis was therefore motivated by an attempt to gain advantage in the litigation. If the above reports are correct, this raises a number of questions regarding the potential misuse of ethical rules to gain such an advantage. Moreover, we also understand that the issue of a conflict of interests had already been addressed before PERADI by specific waivers of any potential conflict from all relevant parties.

It is our understanding that no Indonesian lawyer has ever been disbarred by PERADI. Given Mr. Lubis’ standing in the bar and the fact that no previous ethical violation had been filed against him, we are concerned that the action taken may be based on factors other than the alleged conflict of interests and thus serious concerns are raised about the fairness of the decision and the impartiality of PERADI.

We would like to highlight the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Principle 16 provides that governments shall ensure that lawyers are (a) able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference; (b) able to travel and to consult with their clients freely both within their own country and abroad; and (c) shall not suffer, or be threatened with, prosecution or administrative, economic or other sanctions for any action taken in accordance with recognised professional duties, standards and ethics. Principle 18 provides that lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions; and Principle 23 states that lawyers, like other citizens, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly. Furthermore, Principles 26 to 29 require that codes of professional conduct be established through appropriate bodies, the ‘[c]harges or complaints made against lawyers in their professional capacity shall be processed….fairly under appropriate procedures,” that disciplinary procedures shall be heard before an impartial disciplinary committee and that “all disciplinary hearings shall be determined in accordance with the code of professional conduct and other recognized standards and ethics of the legal profession and in the light of these principles’. 

Based on the reports detailed above, we are concerned that PERADI’s decision to revoke Mr Lubis’ license was based on considerations other than the merits of the alleged violations. The timing of the complaint by the GPA, the grounds on which a conflict of interest was declared and the extreme and unprecedented sanction of permanent revocation all raise serious concerns as to whether the rights afforded to Mr Lubis under the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers have been fully protected.

The IBAHRI would welcome further clarification of the grounds for PERADI’s decision and the apparent misuse of the disciplinary process in this case. We would be grateful to receive your comments on the issues raised above. If it is the case that Mr Lubis’ licence has been revoked following an unfair procedure, or for inappropriate purposes, we call on you to reinstate his licence as a matter of priority.

Yours sincerely,

    Ambassador Emilio Càrdenas                     Justice Richard J. Goldstone
Human Rights Institute Council Chair         Human Rights Institute Council Chair