Facts
On 7 January 2019, the appellant filed a complaint with the Commission de surveillance des professions de la santé et des droits des patients of the canton of Geneva (hereinafter: the Supervisory Commission) against a female doctor who had, on 5 November 2018, drafted a court-ordered expert report in civil proceedings concerning, in particular, the allocation of parental rights over her minor daughter. She considered this report to be untruthful and harmful to the child's health.
By letters of 5 and 19 February 2019, and then on 10 July 2019, the Supervisory Commission stated that it did not rule on expert reports drafted in proceedings opened by other authorities, that it had dismissed the complaint, and that it did not intend to revisit its decision, the appellant contesting the conclusions of the expert report and not a medical treatment.
On 15 August 2019, the appellant seized the Court of Justice of the canton of Geneva, alleging a denial of justice and seeking, in particular, the invalidation of the expert report. On 19 August 2019, she requested legal aid for this procedure. By decision of 30 August 2019, the Vice-President of the Civil Court of the canton of Geneva rejected the request, on the ground that the case had no prospects of success.
By judgment of 23 October 2019 (DAAJ/143/2019), the Vice-President of the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal against this decision, finding it likely that the appeal of 15 August 2019 would be declared inadmissible.
The appellant lodges an appeal in matters of legal aid with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the judgment, the granting of legal aid and the appointment of an officially assigned lawyer. No exchange of written submissions was ordered.
Main question: was the cantonal appeal against the dismissal of the complaint devoid of prospects of success, in particular, does the complainant have the status of a party, and must the Supervisory Commission rule on a court-ordered expert report?
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines admissibility: the decision refusing legal aid is an incidental decision that in principle causes irreparable harm, so that the public law appeal is open under Art. 93 para. 1 let. a FSCA. The appellant's erroneous classification of the appeal does not harm her. The appeal was filed in time by the addressee of the contested judgment, who has standing to appeal (Art. 89 para. 1 and Art. 100 para. 1 FSCA). It is therefore admissible.
The Federal Supreme Court recalls that it applies the law of its own motion, but only examines the violation of fundamental rights and of cantonal law if the complaint is raised and substantiated (Art. 106 para. 2 FSCA). It rules on the basis of the facts established, the appellant not demonstrating that the new facts and documents produced would be likely to influence the outcome of the case (Art. 97 para. 1 and Art. 105 para. 1 FSCA).
The right to legal aid derives from Art. 29 para. 3 Cst., examined freely, as well as from cantonal law, whose broader protection has not been shown. A case is devoid of prospects of success when the prospects of winning are significantly lower than the risks of losing. The cantonal appeal against the dismissal therefore had to be assessed in that light.
From the standpoint of arbitrariness (Art. 9 Cst.), the prior instance found, without arbitrariness, that the appellant, who had no therapeutic relationship with the doctor, was not a patient within the meaning of Art. 9 LComPS and had only the status of a complainant. Arts.…