Some Problems At Lalive
As a lawyer myself, it pains me to write such a review.
On the one hand, a close family member and I had a good experience (albeit exquisitely expensive) with partner Werner Jahnel (Zurich office) re an inheritance case.
However, at around the same time, partner Alexander Troller (Geneva office), committed a breach of deontology in sending a friend of mine (who I’ll call “Athena”) numerous gratuitously insulting and defamatory letters in the context of a neighbor dispute.
Consider the following excerpts:
“…I invite you to get a [mental] health checkup with institutions specializing in your pathology.”
And:
“Jealousy and envy are ugly defects—unlike mental illness which has nothing dishonorable about it. A diagnosis is obviously required, and only a professional will do so with authority.”
Mr. Troller was asked to properly apologize, failing which his clients would be sued for defamation. He refused, so his clients were sued. (This normally constitutes legal malpractice).
Athena eventually settled with her neighbors on favorable terms. She received: (i) a proper letter of apology from her neighbors; and (ii) her legal fees paid in full; and signed no confidentiality clause. However, to this day, a proper letter of apology from A. Troller remains outstanding.
I shared the entire dossier with Mr. Jahnel, and asked him if this matter could be resolved without Athena having to complain to the relevant Bar authorities. At first, Mr. Jahnel stated that it was not untoward for a Geneva law firm to write such offensive and defamatory letters, provided the client (i) compensated the law firm well or (ii) the client was important in the community.
However, Mr. Jahnel eventually conceded that Athena was owed a proper apology. He undertook to discuss the matter with A. Troller and call me the next day. Instead, he sent me two cursory WhatsApps, stating that he was too busy to speak to me. Nearly four months have passed since then. Curious no?
Athena subsequently wrote to Lalive partners: Domitille Baizeau (Geneva office); Mr. Daniel Buhr (ethics & compliance expert- Zurich office); & Mr. Marc Veit (London office) enclosing the relevant correspondence. Mrs. Baizeau responded, stating that since Athena would never be satisfied, Lalive wouldn’t engage with her any further. Really? What a strange statement considering that Athena had clearly stated that she would be satisfied with a proper letter of apology.
Also, once a law firm’s management is made aware that defamatory letters have been sent out on the firm’s letterhead and in the name of the firm’s partners, isn’t it good practice and their deontological duty to repair the harm the law firm has done in an appropriate manner?
Complaints have been filed with the Geneva Bar & the Swiss Federal Bar. A law suit may be filed if these institutions decide to look the other way. Quite an embarrassment for a firm that bills itself as the “disputes powerhouse,” no?
• What to say about a lawyer who persists (over a two year time period) in writing gratuitously insulting and defamatory letters which result in his clients being sued? What to say about a lawyer who refuses to apologize for wrongful behaviour sanctionable by the relevant authority regulating attorneys? Particularly when that lawyer was formerly Counsel of the Geneva Bar Association, and in that capacity determined whether other attorneys were in breach of the lawyers’ code of conduct?
• Clients look to Lalive arbitrators and lawyers to handle highly charged cases involving large sums of money with integrity, moral courage and wisdom. What does it say of a law firm when its senior management condones a partner behaving contrary to the rules of professional conduct?
• Lalive bills itself as being “the disputes powerhouse”. If Lalive can’t resolve disputes involving its own lawyers with wisdom, integrity and commercial sense, can it be entrusted to do so with the arbitrations and disputes of clients?