Facts
The complainant, lawyer [X.] , represented a party in a divorce proceeding before the Lucerne courts and the Federal Court. In the course of the appeal proceedings, he filed a recusal motion against a presiding judge, in which he attempted to disqualify her in an unspecific and personally discrediting manner. The cantonal supervisory authority subsequently reprimanded him. The complainant appealed this decision to the High Court of the Canton of Lucerne, which dismissed the appeal and imposed procedural costs on the complainant.
The complainant then filed an administrative appeal with the Federal Court, requesting that the decision of the High Court be overturned and that no disciplinary action be taken. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal and imposed court costs on the complainant.
Considerations
The Federal Court found that the lower court could reasonably assume that the complainant had attempted to disqualify a judge in an unspecific and personally discrediting manner with his statement, thereby exceeding the limits imposed on a lawyer. The criticized personal polemical attack exceeded the bounds of what is permitted to a lawyer for the effective assertion of his party's interests.
The Federal Court further found that the lower court drew the correct conclusion that this misconduct was to be judged according to the principle of lex mitior or on the basis of the sanction catalog of the two ordinances, pursuant to the provisions of the FMLA. The lower court considered a reprimand to be appropriate for the aforementioned statement.
The Federal Court rejected the numerous legal objections raised by the complainant and found that the lower court had sufficiently…