Warning to a lawyer for violating professional rules

Facts

Parties:

• Appellant: Attorney [A.]
• Respondent: Supervisory Commission of Lawyers of the Canton of Basel-Stadt

Facts:

In the course of a divorce proceeding before the civil court of the canton of Basel-Stadt, attorney Dr. [C.] (representative of the husband) submitted a letter dated February 3, 2016, to attorney [A.] (representative of the wife) on February 23, 2016. This letter contained a settlement proposal. After unsuccessful settlement negotiations, attorney [A.] submitted an "extract" from the same letter in the subsequent exchange of writings with a response to the complaint dated July 13, 2016, covering various parts of the letter.

Attorney Dr. [C.] reported attorney [A.] to the Supervisory Commission, which led to a disciplinary proceeding. The Supervisory Commission warned attorney [A.] for violating professional rules pursuant to Art. 12 lit. a in conjunction with Art. 17 para. 1 lit. a FMLA and imposed a procedural fee of CHF 1,000.-- on him. The appeal against this decision was unsuccessful.

Attorney [A.] filed a complaint in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court, which was answered by the lower court and the Supervisory Commission.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines the complaint in public law matters and finds that the complainant is entitled to file the complaint and that the complaint was filed in time and in proper form.

The complainant alleges a partially incomplete and file-inconsistent, hence arbitrary, factual determination by the lower court. However, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the decisive part of the facts was established by the lower court and that the allegation regarding the facts is unfounded.

The complainant alleges an unlawful application of Art. 12 lit. a FMLA. The Federal Supreme Court states that settlement proposals between attorneys are…