Facts
The late M., who passed away on July 9, 1995 in Basel, had initially named E. as the sole heir in her will. In a later will, she appointed her lawyer W. as the sole heir and executor. Several court proceedings are pending between E. and W. regarding the validity of this second will, with E. being represented by lawyer P. On March 25, 2002, lawyer P., on behalf of his client, initiated debt collection proceedings against W. for a claim of 2 million Swiss francs, without previously demanding payment from him. Thereupon, W. filed a complaint with the Supervisory Commission for Lawyers in the Canton of Zurich against P. for breach of the duty of care. The Supervisory Commission initiated disciplinary proceedings and disciplined P. with a reprimand. P. filed an administrative court appeal against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court first examines whether the administrative court appeal is admissible. It finds that since the entry into force of the Federal Act on the Freedom of Movement for Lawyers (BGFA) on June 1, 2002, the federal administrative court appeal is admissible against final cantonal disciplinary decisions. A distinction must be made as to whether the old cantonal or the new federal law applies. The Federal Supreme Court applies the principle of "lex mitior" and examines the lawyer's conduct under both the old cantonal and the new federal law.
According to the Federal Supreme Court, the conduct of lawyer P. does not violate the general clause of Art. 12 lit. a BGFA, which requires lawyers to practice their profession with care and diligence. While an unnecessarily aggressive and inappropriately harsh approach by the lawyer…