Facts
The complainant [A.] was accused of fraud and forgery in the context of a criminal proceeding. He had appointed lawyer Reto Marbacher as his defense counsel, who had previously represented co-defendant [G.] in a related proceeding. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Lucerne decided not to admit lawyer Marbacher as a legal representative due to a conflict of interest. The Cantonal Court of Lucerne dismissed the complaint filed against this decision.
The complainant then appealed to the Federal Court and requested that the decision of the Cantonal Court be set aside and that lawyer Marbacher be admitted as a legal representative. The Public Prosecutor's Office and the Cantonal Court requested that the complaint be dismissed.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the non-admission of lawyer Marbacher as a legal representative in the criminal proceeding against the complainant was lawful. It found that the right to free choice of defense counsel is not unlimited and that reservations such as criminal procedural and professional regulations as well as admission requirements exist.
The court found that a legal representative can safeguard the interests of several parties involved in the same proceeding, within the limits of the law and professional rules, while observing Art. 12 lit. c of the Lawyers Act, which requires lawyers to avoid any conflict between the interests of their clients and the persons with whom they have a business or private relationship.
The Federal Court concluded that a conflict of interest existed in the present case, as lawyer Marbacher had…