Can Someone Convicted of Corruption Still Be an Attorney?

In the past, there was a judge who, while in office, deceived members of the public by claiming he could intervene with other judges on their behalf, thereby committing the crime of fraud. After this judge transferred to practice as an attorney, he committed two further offenses, for which he was sentenced, respectively, to three years and three years and six months' imprisonment, both of which became final. The Attorney Disciplinary Committee found that this attorney had failed to conduct himself with integrity during his tenure as a judge, that he should be subject to disciplinary action, and disbarred him — meaning he could no longer practice as an attorney (92nd Year Lu-Cheng-Tzu No. 12).

Recently, however, a prosecutor met with a very different fate. While in office, he used his position to accept bribes and be treated to lavish entertainment at hostess bars. After he could no longer continue as a prosecutor and transferred to practice as an attorney, he was sentenced to more than seven years' imprisonment for corruption, with the judgment becoming final. Yet, in this case, the Attorney Disciplinary Committee decided "not to impose disciplinary action" — meaning he could continue practicing as an attorney (99th Year Lu-Cheng-Tzu No. 9). Why such an extreme discrepancy? Because in this case, the Attorney Disciplinary Committee went so far as to narrowly construe the Attorney Regulation Act, holding that both the criminal conduct and the finalization of the conviction must have occurred during the period of practicing as an attorney for it to count as an "attorney's crime" — otherwise there would be "no grounds for disciplinary action." A prosecutor who had shed his robe of office because of his crime was thus, thanks to the Attorney Disciplinary Committee's leniency, able to gracefully don an attorney's robe instead and continue to move freely through the courts.

Both cases involve crimes committed by judicial personnel, so why does the Disciplinary Committee apply double standards, arriving at diametrically opposite findings? Why, as times progress and public expectations continue to rise, have disciplinary standards instead grown ever more lenient? An attorney convicted of a crime is disbarred and can no longer practice law; yet if a judge or prosecutor commits a serious offense such as corruption, they can continue practicing as an attorney — this, too, is a strange double standard. Why should those who have corrupted the law and harmed the judiciary be allowed to remain within the legal community? In the end, this can only continue to harm the public's rights and interests, as well as the already fragile image of the judiciary.

If one asks how the Attorney Disciplinary Committee has been able to quietly let a corrupt prosecutor go on to become an attorney without anyone noticing, it is because disciplinary resolutions that decide not to impose discipline are never made public — members of the public have no way of finding out about them at all!

At present, the evaluation of judges and prosecutors, as well as disciplinary actions against civil servants, are made public regardless of the outcome; yet resolutions of the Attorney Disciplinary Committee that decide against imposing discipline are not published in the Executive Yuan Gazette, making it difficult for outsiders to grasp the full picture of attorney discipline or to use this information to oversee the standards applied by the Attorney Disciplinary Committee. If the legal profession is genuinely determined to strengthen its self-regulatory function, it should not hold itself to a lower standard than others. Here, the author calls on the competent authority to make all disciplinary resolutions public (or to publish them with certain names redacted), so that the resolutions of the Attorney Disciplinary Committee can be openly subject to review by the legal profession and scrutiny by the public at large.