1965 Feb. 17 [ Z E K I A P . , V A S S I L I A D E S , T R I A N T A F Y L L I D E S , MUN1R AND JOSEPHIDES J.J.] IN T H E MATTER ot SECTION 17 o r THE ADVOCATES IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 17OF THE ADVOCATES LAW, CAP. 2. (AS AMENDED) L A W , C A P . 2, (As AMENDED) and IN THE M A T T E R or A. B. A N D X. and IN THE MATTER OF A.B. AND X.Y., ADVOCATES. Y., ADVOCATES Advocate—Unprofessional conduct—Breach of professional eti quette—Advertising and publicity—Causing or permitting pub lication—Enquiry by the Disciplinary Boardunder section 17
(3)of the Advocates Law, Cap. 2 (as amended). Supreme Court—Powers of review under section 17
(5)of the Advo cates Law, Cap. 2. The Charge : The Disciplinary Board, in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the provisions of section 17
(3)of the Advocates Law, Cap. 2, (as amended), called upon the following advocates to appear before it on the 29th January, 1965, to answer a charge for unprofessional conduct as fol lows :
(1)Advocate A.B., for causing or permitting publications to be published in thelocal newspapers («Άγων» of the 1964, and «Νίκη» and «Άγων» of the , 1964) in connection with actions instituted by him ;
(2)Advocate X.Y., for causing or permitting publications to be published in the local newspapers («Άγων» of the . . . , 1964, and «Πατρίς»,«Φιλελεύθερος» and «Μάχη» of the , 1965) concerning cases brought by him be fore the Court. THE ENQUIRY AND THE DECISION OF THE DISCI PLINARY BOARD : Onthe29thJanuary, 1965,thesaid Advo cates A.B. and X.Y. appeared before the Disciplinary Board in compliancewith section 17
(3)of the Advocates Law, Cap. 2,to answer theabove charges. The Disciplinary Board after hearing the said advocates and considering the charges decided to admi nistera warning toeach advocate. The Decision of the Board as communicated to the Supreme Court by the Attorney-General 14 of the Republic, President of the Disciplinary Board, under the provisions of section 17
(3)(/)) {ibid,, supra) is to the following e f f e c t : - - . , !7 ,ΝΤΗΕ " Both advocates frankly admitted the charge and expressed their sorrow for what it happened and they promised that such an act will not be repeated in future. ' 1965 Febi , MATTEK OF KCTinN ,r ' ADVOCATE.-. LAW, CAI·. 2, Particularly A.B. stated that the information to the press was not given by him but apparently by his clerk who is related to a press photographer. ,As AMENDFD ami iS T H E MATTE Advocate X.Y. made no secret that such information was given by him because he thought that there were legal points in which the public might be interested. When it was pointed out to him that even so there was no need for his name to appear so prominently in the publications he ad mitted that that was wrong, expressed his sorrow and pre mised that a similar thing will not take place in future. AND X. V., Anvoc.vn:·; or A.B. In thecourse of the proceedings it cropped up that it would be desirable that the Bar Council may issue Rules of Eii. quette under section 24 (I) (i) of the Advocates Law, Cap. 2. . especially in view of the fact that advocates in Cyprus had taken their training under different legal systems. It was pointed out that such a course might be desirable though the offence with which the Board was dealing en tailed the same consequences almost in all legal systems. including countries, such as England, the United States of America, France and Greece. Particularly with regard to the latter reference was made to three decisions of the Disci• plinary Board there and a circular of the Greek Bar Council issued in consequence thereof. * The Board taking all the circumstances into consideration and viewing particularly the decent way in which both adve" cates put forward their case thought that a warning would meet each case." BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT : T h e S u p r e m e Court, after considering the above decision of the Disciplinary Board decided that no further action need be taken in the matter under the provisions of section 17
(5)of the Advocates Law, Cap. 2. Decision of the Disciplinary Board nut disturbed.