In Mr Cohen’s case, it was his audacity to lie under oath to Congress about a plan for a Trump Tower project in Moscow and several other charges that cost him his practising certificate.

Back in August 2018, Mr Cohen pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion, two federal campaign finance violations related to his role in paying hush money to two women about sexual encounters with Trump before he became president, and one count of making a false statement.

Under New York law, a felony conviction automatically triggers disbarment. Following Mr Cohen’s guilty plea, the relevant disciplinary panel in New York asked an appeals court in Manhattan to disbar Mr Cohen. The request was granted, and Mr Cohen’s name was removed from the roll of attorneys allowed to practice in New York. Mr Cohen will also spend three years in federal prison.

So how is Mr Cohen’s case relevant to practitioners in Australia?

For one, Mr Cohen’s case demonstrates that no one is above the law. Even immunity offered to some against prosecution or civil liability is limited as it is the law itself that provides the immunity. Those who break the law face hefty repercussions.

More importantly, Mr Cohen’s disbarment serves as a reminder of the high ethical and legal standards that practitioners in Australia must obey.

High standards and repercussions

VIEW ALL

As a refresher, lawyers in Australia have a paramount duty to the court and the administration of justice. This paramount duty is balanced with the duty of loyalty and zealous advocacy to the client. Together, the two form the bedrock of the ethical foundations of the legal profession.

Under the traditional model of self-regulation of ethics, the combination of the two duties is characterised as extreme partisanship with moral non-accountability. The principle of partisanship … requires advocates to advance their clients’ partisan interests with the maximum zeal permitted by law; and the principle of non-accountability … insists that an advocate is morally responsible for neither the ends pursued by the client nor the means of pursuing those ends, provided that both means and ends are lawful.

It goes further; there is a moral obligation to the community by virtue of the honourable responsibility and trust bestowed on lawyers to uphold the law and ensure its efficient and proper operation.

This moral obligation enforces the ethical foundations of the legal profession, for which several codes and rules have been developed.

Ongoing checks of lawyers’ practice are achieved through a focus on maintaining standards of character and ethics in line with the relevant codes and rules. Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in any conduct that could demonstrate that they are not a fit and proper person to practice law.

Where misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct is detected, they are met with appropriate disciplinary measures and sanctions.

Disciplinary measures range from reprimands and restrictions on practising certificates to fines or a requirement to attend continuing legal education. These are usually imposed for unsatisfactory professional conduct.

For professional misconduct or both, the main disciplinary sanctions are suspension or disbarment. They are designed to protect the public by putting a practitioner out of the profession.

No mercy in the legal profession

Recent cases of disbarment demonstrate that disciplinary sanctions can occur in a variety of circumstances where no amount of remorse, contrition or change of behaviour may be adequate to prevent the imposition of the sanctions.

Some of the cases include circumstances where a lawyer voluntarily reported misusing trust account funds; a barrister produced 12 character witnesses from prominent people, including senior barristers, a federal MP and a retired Supreme Court judge, after being found guilty of overcharging a client; an aspiring lawyer admitted to cheating in – of all things – an ethics exam.

In all these cases, no leniency was afforded, and the imposed sanction was disbarment.

There is no mercy in the legal profession for a simple reason: affording mercy would not only distort the legal system but also nullify the notion of justice.

Society places great trust in those who are empowered to uphold the rule of law. But with great trust comes great responsibility. It is due to the nature of this acute role that lawyers are held accountable to high ethical standards and legal obligations. Those unable to honour the great trust [afforded them] are not fit to be part of the profession.

Arthur Marusevich is a lawyer based in Canberra. He uses his five-language skills to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Having written his first book, Arthur is an aspiring novelist and aims to publish one novel a year.