Previously, the procedural requests of the parties were heard at the hearings, feedbacks were presented.
At the last court session at the end of August, the speaker of the disciplinary case, Andrius Iškauskas, withdrew.
This was announced on social networks both by the public figure Andrius Tapinas, at whose request the case was brought by the Minister of Justice E. Dobrowolska, and by I. Vėgėlė himself, who claimed that A. Iškauskas resigned because of the representation of the public institution “Laisvės TV” founded by A. Tapinas.
During the hearing, I. Vēgėlė questioned his impartiality, claiming that A. Iškauskas had kept silent about the fact that he had previously represented the aforementioned institution.
A. Iškauskas himself told BNS at the time that he could not reveal the details because the meetings were held behind closed doors. According to him, none of the participants of the court of honor should reveal the information that was learned during the hearing.
It is planned that the case will be further examined by three members of the Honorable Court of Advocates. Such a possibility is provided for in the description of the examination of cases of disciplinary cases of lawyers.
The disciplinary case was brought against the lawyer last September due to the fact that speaking in the public space about the activities of persons who organized support during the COVID-19 pandemic and during the war in Ukraine, he may have misled the public, creating grounds for unreasonably doubting the integrity and transparency of the activities of the specified persons.
In a public comment last year in mid-July, I. Vēgėlė raised doubts about the transparency of the collection of support for doctors during the coronavirus pandemic and Ukrainians attacked by Russia.
“I’m revealing a secret – not a single entity that provided support or charity during the pandemic fulfilled this duty on time (until May 1). Maybe there was no support? The same with aid to Ukraine? An open and public question: has VMI punished any institution or company, maybe we heard about inspections? No, stop it, why? You got charity and went abroad to play poker. Watch and you will win charitable money…” – said I. Vēgėlė in a comment published on the news portal “Delfi”.
Although A. Tapinas is not mentioned in I. Vēgėlė’s comment, it was he who organized a fund-raising campaign to buy a combat drone “Bayraktar” for the Ukrainian army and later went to the USA to play poker.
Due to this comment, the member of the public wrote a complaint to the Minister of Justice
window.fbAsyncInit = function() {
FB.init({
appId: ‘117218911630016’,
version: ‘v2.10’,
status: true,
cookie: false,
xfbml: true
});
};
(function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) {
return;
}
js = d.createElement(s);
js.id = id;
js.src = “https://connect.facebook.net/lt_LT/sdk.js”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
#Court #Honor #continue #examination #Vēgėlės #disciplinary #case
**News Editor Interview with Legal Expert I. Vėgėlė on Recent Developments in Disciplinary Case**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, I. Vėgėlė. The recent developments in the disciplinary case have generated quite a buzz. Can you summarize what led to the withdrawal of Andrius Iškauskas from the case?
**I. Vėgėlė:** Thank you for having me. Andrius Iškauskas withdrew as the speaker of the disciplinary case during the last court session in August. His resignation was prompted by concerns about his impartiality, particularly given his prior representation of “Laisvės TV,” a public institution founded by Andrius Tapinas, who requested that the disciplinary case be initiated.
**Editor:** It seems there are significant implications regarding impartiality here. Could you elaborate on why you believe Iškauskas’s previous ties could affect the case?
**I. Vėgėlė:** Absolutely. In any disciplinary proceeding, the credibility of the adjudicator is paramount. I raised concerns that Iškauskas did not disclose his prior involvement with “Laisvės TV,” which I felt could lead to a conflict of interest. The public must be assured of fairness and transparency, especially in matters that scrutinize the actions of legal professionals.
**Editor:** Understandably so. What happens next with the case now that Iškauskas has stepped down?
**I. Vėgėlė:** The case will continue, as it is now in the hands of three members of the Honorable Court of Advocates. This is a standard procedure outlined in disciplinary case reviews, ensuring that the case is examined by a different panel that can bring a fresh perspective.
**Editor:** The background of this case involves serious allegations against the attorney. Can you explain the basis for the disciplinary actions taken?
**I. Vėgėlė:** Certainly. The disciplinary case was initiated last September, focusing on allegations that the attorney misled the public when discussing individuals involved in support activities during critical times like the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine. The claims suggest that his statements might have undermined public trust in these individuals, raising questions about their integrity and transparency.
**Editor:** This is indeed a complex and sensitive issue. How do you think this will impact the public’s perception of the legal profession?
**I. Vėgėlė:** It’s concerning. Cases like this can potentially erode trust in the legal system if the public perceives that conflicts of interest or lack of impartiality are at play. It’s essential for the legal community to handle these allegations transparently and responsibly to maintain public confidence.
**Editor:** Thank you, I. Vėgėlė, for your insights on this matter. It seems the outcome of this case could have broader ramifications for the legal profession and public trust.
**I. Vėgėlė:** Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that we continue to engage in these conversations as they affect not only the individuals involved but society as a whole.
