Facts
The complainant, lawyer A., had filed a complaint against lawyer [E.] with the Supervisory Commission on lawyers in the Canton of Zurich on December 14, 2001, for unauthorized "dual representation". The Supervisory Commission initiated disciplinary proceedings and, by decision of November 7, 2002, found that there was no disciplinary offense and discontinued the proceedings against E. It imposed procedural costs of 1,774 francs on the complainant and ordered him to pay [E.] compensation of 1,500 francs.
The complainant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Supervisory Commission, alleging a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.) and the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.). The question of whether the complainant is entitled to lodge a constitutional complaint was answered in the affirmative by the Federal Court, insofar as the costs ruling is concerned.
Considerations
The Federal Court first examined whether the complainant is entitled to lodge a constitutional complaint. It found that the disciplinary supervision of lawyers serves public and not private interests and that the complainant is therefore not entitled to demand the disciplining of the lawyer.
The Court then examined whether the complainant is entitled to challenge the costs ruling. It found that the complainant is entitled to do so in this respect, as the costs ruling affects his legally protected interests.
The Court then examined whether the costs ruling is unconstitutional. It found that the complainant had not shown in what way the…