The National Commission of Judicial Discipline confirmed the sentence that declared a lawyer disciplinary responsible for incurring in the fault described in the Article 39 of Law 1123 of 2007what did creditor of the sanction of suspension in the exercise of the profession for two years.
The professional knew that a suspension sanction was in force once morest him, even so he filed a lawsuit once morest the Institute for the Social Economy of Bogotá. The court to which the distribution corresponded stated that “lawyers suspended or excluded from the profession cannot practice law, even if they are registered, this court refrains from hearing this matter because the lawyer does not have a valid professional card” .
Given this situation, the lawyer withdrew the claim and its annexes, but resubmitted it, which was rejected as it was not corrected, due to the lack of the conciliation requirement. He continued to file the claim for the restitution of a leased property, also rejected, and filed a domain action claim, which in turn was rejected for lack of jurisdiction.
The CNDJ indicated that even the accused himself documented in the process that he was aware of the current sanction once morest him, and although he legitimately undertook various actions to dispute it, this did not exempt him from respecting and complying with the legal provisions that establish the incompatibilities for the exercise of the profession while a sanction is imposed that prevents him from practicing as a lawyer (MP Carlos Arturo Ramirez Vasquez).