Transparency International (TI), the leading global movement against corruption, has long focused on the need for transparency in the justice system. And this year’s Global Corruption Report 2007, TI’s flagship publication, tackles the theme of corruption in judicial systems, diagnosing key obstacles to a corruption-free judiciary and providing practical recommendations for all actors, including lawyers.
One conclusion of the Global Corruption Report 2007 is that judicial integrity is the product of two vital qualities — accountability of the judicial apparatus and its independence from outside manipulation. In contrast, when courts are corrupted by greed or political expediency, the scales of justice are tipped — and real people suffer.
Bribery can occur at every point in the judicial process: court officials may seek bribes for services that should be free; lawyers may charge additional ‘fees’ to expedite or delay cases, or to direct clients to judges known to take bribes. Judges may accept bribes to delay or accelerate cases, accept or deny appeals, influence other judges or simply to decide a case a certain way.
A 2004 poll in the US showed that 70% of respondents believed that judicial campaign contributions have some influence on judges’ decisions. This indicates a profound lack of trust vis-a-vis the judiciary; one that, if not based on experience of corruption, at least indicates a huge challenge to the legitimacy of the judiciary and by extension to democratic institutions.
But judicial corruption does not just involve judges. In the UK, judges are seldom the target of allegations of corruption, but law enforcement agencies frequently stand accused. And in France, close links between prosecutors and the executive leaves ample room for political interference, particularly in the investigation of major corruption scandals.
Interference from politicians or civil servants can buy ‘legal’ cover for embezzlement, nepotism, cronyism and illegal political decisions. Such interference can be as blatant as physical threats and intimidation, and as subtle as the manipulation of judicial appointments, salaries and conditions of service.
As an essential link in the judicial chain, lawyers have an important role to play in assessing and challenging judicial corruption. TI’s recommendations are focused on independence and accountability as a crucial basis for clean success in the courtroom.
It is not always easy, but an important starting point is for lawyers to recognise when a gift is meant as an inducement. Similarly, professional discussions belong in an official setting and using extra-official meetings as a way of letting a judge hear an argument on a case is probably against most firms’ codes
of conduct.
Written rules are not enough, however. When attorneys internalise ethical guidelines and codes of conduct by making these their mode of operation, their own independence and that of other actors is maintained. In contrast, when a lawyer seeks unnecessary adjournments or accepts new cases for convenience or personal gain, knowing that clashes with ongoing cases are unavoidable, the client is not served.
At the same time, acting with integrity and professional ethics does not mean everyone involved will do the same. Finding the courage to become a whistleblower means not being party to corrupt practices by keeping silent. Reporting unethical behaviour by colleagues or superiors is not an act of disloyalty. In the long term, it contributes to the respectability of the legal profession.
At the same time, reporting criminal behaviour or improper influence of judicial decisions to the relevant law enforcement body is not only a means of achieving justice for the victims of tainted decisions but, arguably, the only appropriate way for lawyers to represent their clients.
Robin Hodess is director of policy and research at Transparency International. The Global Corruption Report 2007 was published on 24 May by Cambridge University Press.
