The Third Constitutional Claim of Lasha Janibegashvili against the Georgian Bar Association

The Goal of the Claim: To create a superior legal system where the rights of every lawyer are adequately protected across the country. This lawsuit seeks to eliminate discriminatory approaches, ensure the right to a fair trial is never violated for legal professionals, and establish a range of procedural privileges that will naturally elevate the role of the lawyer within society.

Essence and Substantiation of the Constitutional Claim

I, Lasha Janibegashvili, a lawyer in Georgia, hereby contest the norms of the Law of Georgia "On Lawyers" which dictate that an appeal against a decision of the Ethics Commission of the Georgian Bar Association regarding disciplinary sanctions is linked directly and exclusively to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia. This regulation deprives a lawyer of the opportunity to utilize a full-fledged, multi-stage, and effective mechanism of judicial protection.

In my assessment, the disputed regulation contradicts the following guarantees of the Constitution of Georgia:

• The Right to a Fair Trial — Article 31, Paragraph 1;

• The Principle of Equality and Prohibition of Discrimination — Article 11;

• The Right to Free Development of Personality — Derived from relevant constitutional standards.

1. The Problem with the Disputed Norm

Article 35¹(1) of the Law of Georgia "On Lawyers" stipulates that a lawyer may appeal a disciplinary decision of the Ethics Commission directly to the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. This model is fundamentally problematic because:

• Self-Regulation vs. Judicial Oversight: Disciplinary proceedings are initially conducted within a self-governing professional body (The Ethics Commission).

• Bypassing Courts: Decisions of this body are not reviewed by the Courts of First Instance or the Appellate Courts.

• Lack of Guarantees: The lawyer—who defends citizens through a three-tier justice system—is denied the same level of procedural guarantees when defending their own professional rights.

This model creates a situation where the Ethics Commission is essentially granted the power of two court instances, despite not being an independent or impartial court in the constitutional sense.

2. Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial

Under Article 31(1) of the Constitution, every person has the right to appeal to a court to protect their rights. A fair trial includes:

• Review by an independent and impartial body;

• Equality of parties and full evaluation of evidence;

• Reasoned decisions and effective judicial control.

The disputed norm fails to meet these standards. By preventing a lawyer from having a disciplinary case heard first in a Court of First Instance and then reviewed by an Appellate Court, the intensity of judicial protection is diminished, placing the lawyer in a vulnerable position.

3. Discrimination on Professional Grounds

Article 11 of the Constitution prohibits discrimination. The disputed norm creates a professional-based differentiated regime:

• Ordinary Citizens/Entities: Enjoy the full three-tier court hierarchy to protect their rights.

• Lawyers: Despite their vital constitutional function in the justice system, they are deprived of this same standard.

This differentiation cannot be constitutionally justified unless the state can prove it serves a legitimate, necessary, and proportional purpose.

4. Violation of the Principle of Proportionality

To justify the restriction of a right, a norm must be necessary and proportional. If the goal is to ensure professional discipline, it can be achieved through less restrictive means, such as:

• Allowing appeals to the Court of First Instance;

• Ensuring subsequent appellate control;

• Using the cassation mechanism as a final step. The current model is not necessary and constitutes an excessive restriction of rights.

5. The Problem of Impartiality and Objective Control

The legal profession is highly competitive, and Ethics Commission members are often practicing peers. It is constitutionally necessary for disciplinary liability to be reviewed outside the professional corporation by an independent court. Impartiality is particularly questioned when a lawyer who has publicly criticized the Bar leadership is being judged by that same corporation.

6. The "Chilling Effect" on Freedom of Expression

According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), lawyers are essential intermediaries between society and the courts. Sanctions against them can have a "chilling effect" on freedom of expression. It is especially problematic when disciplinary persecution follows critical public assessments or the exposure of flaws within the professional system.

7. Specific Factual Context

Numerous disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against me, which I assess as being directly related to:

• My publicly expressed critical opinions;

• My exposure of the Bar Association’s activities;

• The initiation of constitutional litigation. Evidence suggests selective justice, as similar actions by others have not triggered disciplinary pursuit.

8. The Objective of the Lawsuit

This claim serves the public interest of "healing" the justice system by:

• Ensuring adequate protection of lawyers' rights;

• Eliminating selective and discriminatory approaches;

• Strengthening the social role of the legal profession based on institutional guarantees.

9. Motion to Suspend the Disputed Norm

Since several disciplinary cases are currently pending against me, there is a real risk that my professional status will be suspended before the conclusion of this litigation. I request the suspension of the disputed norm until a final decision is reached. Without this, a future victory in the Constitutional Court would be rendered functionally useless if irreparable damage is already done to my career.

10. Conclusion

The disputed norms of the Law "On Lawyers" violate the right to a fair trial, contradict the principle of equality, and fail the standard of proportionality. Therefore, I request that the Constitutional Court declare these norms unconstitutional.

Illegal Pressure on Lawyer Lasha Janibegashvili Attached below is the official constitutional claim which successfully proceeded to the stage of review on its merits. However, lawyer Lasha Janibegashvili was forced to withdraw it due to illegal pressure.

• Download Link: 3 [Download Link: 3rd Constitutional Claim - Janibegashvili vs. Association

• [Related: Misappropriation of EU Grants — Georgian Bar Association]

• [Related: Who are Ethics Commission members Ana Loria and Natia Chitashvili? Why are they called fraudsters?]