The robe and the silence: the lawyer’s restraint in the face of tragedy
In the wake of the Crans-Montana tragedy, which left behind a desert of ashes and inconsolable grief, the figure of the lawyer takes center stage. The lawyer is no longer a mere auxiliary of justice, but must remain, in the midst of human catastrophes, the guardian of a necessary dignity.
Right from the start, we were repeatedly asked by various media outlets to comment on the affair, all of which we politely declined, while the TV studios were packed with guests from all walks of life.
At the firm, this situation has made us all think deeply about the role of the lawyer in such proceedings, even if we have to admit that the definition of the duties and responsibilities incumbent upon the person wearing the robe remains eminently subjective.
In all criminal proceedings, and particularly those where the horror of the facts grips the whole of society, we believe that the effectiveness of the defense is forged far from the immediacy of the spotlight, in favor of time for evidence gathering and legal analysis. For a few media outlets that gorge themselves on sensationalism under the cloak of news, the invitation of the lawyer’s tutelary figure and natural authority gives the illusion of a fair, impartial and independent treatment of the facts. However, the lawyer must never be used as a foil for a narrow vision of a certain type of journalism, but rather as its opponent. The complexity, thoroughness and necessary slowness of criminal proceedings do not sit well with the diktat of the immediate new, livesensational and “ready-to-judge” news served up by certain forms of journalism.
Beyond the exposure that our profession can sometimes generate, the lawyer remains above all the servant of a cause that transcends himself. It is a priesthood that obliges the man beneath the robe, a garment not of pomp and circumstance, but one that enables him to stand in for his client and be his voice. And this voice is not in search of light, but of justice.
At Etude, we are convinced, today more than ever, that this voice must be one of sobriety and temperance. We know that it is possible to adopt and express firm positions without necessarily resorting to excess, exuberance or irreverence, and especially in places where the right is said. It’s true – and we’re no exception to the rule – that narcissism now dictates the tempo of an age where the world is divided between influencers and influenced, where the smallest corners of our existence are staged, on pain of no longer existing. Nevertheless, the strength of the lawyer as a legal professional lies above all in his ability to defend his client’s interests in the legal arena. The power of argumentation thus lies, in our view, in its procedural precision rather than in its repetition in the public arena, where complex legal issues run the risk of being simplified or misunderstood. The lawyer’s weapons are those of procedure and law. These weapons are powerful when used wisely, but highly useless when not pointed in the right direction, and even self-destructive when vented in the public arena.
Premature media exposure of the lawyer runs the risk of obscuring the cause he or she is supposed to serve, and that mask rarely resembles the one worn by the vigilante whose arrival the victims are desperately awaiting.
For us, the lawyer’s role is that of a pillar of relief, support and appeasement; one to whom the search for truth and justice will be entrusted in order to enable his client to regain a semblance of peace. The lawyer does not make his client’s pain his own, but empathizes with him (in the original sense of the German language). Einfühlung“to feel in”) without necessarily falling into compassion (from the Latin cum pati, to suffer with).
This is how we can hope to allow the truth to emerge from the rubble. Not through media hype, but through a meticulous analysis of the elements of a case, which it is up to the competent criminal authorities to investigate and the lawyers to serve them, initially sheltered from a media gaze that risks polluting the evidence yet to be administered.
In the Crans-Montana case, the quest for all the evidence needed to establish responsibility is a duty to the deceased and injured; it demands the kind of precision that only calm can achieve.
A lawyer must remain impervious to popular vindictiveness and the cries of the crowd, but more than that, he must refrain from anything that might stir up resentment, misunderstanding and the hatred that may ensue. Because it is neither in media tumult nor in fury that justice can be delivered serenely. So, while it’s the lawyer’s duty to understand the pain expressed by society, it’s also sometimes his or her duty to resist it, or even to ignore it, in order to appease it, to allow justice to do its job, to give the institution a tiny chance of becoming the virtue it’s supposed to embody.
The media, however, sometimes need to speak out. Whether its aim is to alert society to an arbitrary application of the law, an injustice or a form of partiality towards a party. It’s up to the lawyer to recognize when the defense of his or her cause requires public speaking. In the present proceedings, we asked ourselves the question of the relevance of speaking out at the outset of an extraordinary case, the investigation of which will undoubtedly be long, painful, complicated and particularly technical. And at this stage of the proceedings, we have unanimously ruled out this option. Out of respect for the victims and for the serenity Justice needs to do its job.
Here, discretion does not mean silence, and sobriety does not mean cowardice. On the contrary, lawyers often work in the shadows, silently plotting their strategy before bringing out their arguments, which they hope will be unstoppable, at the most opportune stage of the proceedings. Silence, on the other hand, is treason when it translates into compromise with the authorities, with no regard for the fundamental rights of the parties. This is not the case here.
By choosing restraint, the lawyer protects the integrity of the investigation and the pain of the victims. By favouring procedural weapons, the lawyer enables justice to take the right path, that of the search for evidence, which is essential but highly fragile. In this way, the lawyer reminds us that justice is a work of patience, respect and, above all, self-sacrifice.
