The former judge of the chamber who convicted the former commanders, Ricardo Gil Lavedra, said that the CABA Public Bar Association has to have
“a more powerful institutional voice”
to defend the rights of lawyers before Justice, the Government and Congress.
The former national deputy of the UCR is running for re-election, after two years in office,
in the elections on Tuesday the 16th of this month
in which some 70,000 Buenos Aires lawyers are able to vote. This is a key election because this college provides a representative for the National Judicial Council.
Gil Lavedra has the UCR and the PRO among his supporters. Among the names that support his re-election are Martín Casares, Paula Colombo, Pablo Clusellas, former Legal and Technical Secretary of Mauricio Macri.
In addition, it is promoted by groups linked to Germán Garavano, former Minister of Justice, Jimena de la Torre, current members of the National Judicial Council, and Diego Marías, a former official of the Larreta administration in the City. From the UCR there is support from the Purple Strip, from Carlos Más Velez who is on the list and from Daniel Angelici's sector. In total, there are 13 groups that make up the official front.
Gil Lavedra
will compete against his current first vice president, Patricia Trotta
, who broke with the current leadership and heads the list of People of Law, which has Jorge Rizzo on the list, which includes a large part of Buenos Aires Peronism and Kirchnerism, whose strong man in the Capital is Juan Manuel Olmos, former official of Alberto Fernández.
A third list is also presented,
headed by Ruben Ramos
, general secretary of the State Lawyers' Association, with former Massista deputy Carla Pitiot, from the Sergio Massa Renewal Front, as vice president.
The following is a summary of an interview by Gil Lavedra with
Clarín
:
After two years at the head of the CABA Public Bar Association, what are your proposals in the event that your mandate is renewed for two more years in the internal elections?
A professional, prestigious and modern Public School. Let him seriously defend the entire legal profession, litigants, state lawyers and corporate lawyers. That it defends not only its duties or the protection of fees, but also that it provides excellent training, better services and tools for professional practice. A College that is both a powerful institutional voice to defend the rule of law and seek judicial reforms that allow for faster processes. Continue the profound change that we started two years ago.
Why did you file an injunction against the article of the new anti-money laundering law that obliges lawyers to be obligated subjects of the UIF in the case of suspicions about the origin of the fees paid by their clients?
Any activity that is required based on legal knowledge is the practice of law. And everything is protected by the confidentiality of professional secrecy. The reform to the money laundering law, which obliges the non-litigation lawyer in certain matters to control, investigate and even report his client grossly violates professional secrecy and, therefore, the constitutional guarantee of defense in court. Furthermore, it places on the shoulders of lawyers a series of obligations typical of a bank or financial institution that are impossible to comply with.
Why did you not want to present an amparo against the mega DNU of President Javier Milei?
Since 1863, with the enactment of Law 27, popular action in defense of legality has been excluded in our legal order. A "case" or "controversy" is always necessary, that is, a specific damage or impact on the interest of the claimant. Only in one case, the Supreme Court enabled a very exceptional legitimation in defense of the Constitution (“Tucumán Bar Association”). , because the sanction of constitutional norms itself was at stake. DNU 70/2023 does not satisfy, in my opinion, the requirements established by the Constitution and the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, but it does not undermine any specific interest of the State. Therefore, the Bar Association lacks standing to bring any action. Even the lawyers' associations that tried to do so lost the lawsuit.
What did you mean when at the launch of your campaign you said that “we are going to continue governing with austerity or we return to privileges, to the gift of 'Rolex' or sumptuous parties”?
The College cannot be considered a property of the list that wins an election each time, and must be administered without superfluous expenses. There have been many lavish parties and lavish gifts for former presidents in the past. Austerity in management allowed us to carry out a true transformation of the facilities for the benefit of those enrolled (cowork rooms, three floors of new classrooms, refurbishing all classrooms with the latest technology, reopening the bar and restaurant, etc.) . Instead of giving away Rolex, we have invested in improving services to the legal profession, and we have done so at a very difficult economic time for the country.
What did the Court resolve regarding the request for an update of the UMA requested by the school?
We got the Supreme Court to order that with each increase in the salaries of judicial personnel, the value of the UMA, the unit of measurement for professional fees, would be automatically updated. In this way, in times of very high inflation, we have managed to defend the pockets of all those enrolled.
And as for the full presence of court employees after the pandemic?
After the pandemic, the Court delegated to the Chambers, and these in turn to the courts, the regulation of judicial work. This gave rise to true anarchy. Each judge in court had what was in-person or virtual. The lawyer was then faced with the uncertainty of multiple work modalities that harmed his work. The presentation we made before the Supreme Court sought not to simply return to face-to-face presence (virtual work has shown greater efficiency in many cases), but rather to have a homogeneous judicial work regime, at least in each jurisdiction, so that litigants They knew how to proceed in each case. The Court made this known to the Chambers and the issue is being resolved.
What steps did you take to ensure that the so-called notorious successions and administrative divorces were not included in the Omnibus Law?
We speak out publicly through several statements. I personally attended the Congress where I had meetings with several of the block presidents and later I also made personal representations with all the block presidents. We had built a very important majority when the vote in particular on those points came. The project fell apart and now fortunately it no longer appears in the new initiatives of the Executive Branch. It is clear that we were heard.-