It is a trial that sees lawyer pitched against examining magistrate, Lutgen v Rodrigues. The case initially began when the question was raised what means a lawyer can legally use to defend their client. Lawyer Lutgen was thus put on trial for alleged acts of intimidation and defamation of a civil servant, examining magistrate Filipe Rodrigues.
The starting point for the dispute was an enquiry around a fatal work accident at ArcelorMittal in May 2019, which saw a 45-year-old employee die by electrocution. In the aftermath of the accident, the main electric supply point of the site was shut off for a few days. This affected both the ArcelorMittal sites in Differdange and Belval, potentially provoking weekly losses of up to €20 million.
Lutgen, who is a former examining magistrate himself, took on ArcelorMittal as a client and requested updates about the case from Rodrigues at the time. However, after a first response, Lutgen did not hear back from the examining magistrate.
The lawyer thus wrote an email about the matter to State Prosecutor Martine Solovieff and then-Ministers Braz and Schneider. Magistrate Rodrigues considered this an act of intimidation and defamation of a civil servant.
During the trial in November, Lutgen’s lawyer argued that the case is about the autonomy of their profession. Sentencing his client would be upsetting, both for him and for the entire profession. It would mean that the prosecution is able to dictate how lawyers have to work.
Rodrigues’ defence countered that the principles of autonomy are both rightful and important, but that this case shows an incident of somebody crossing the penal line.
The verdict, which was announced in December, was a partial success for Lutgen: the allegation of intimidation was dropped, but he was still sentenced to pay a €2,000 fine for defamation of a civil servant, as well as €1 to the examining magistrate as a symbolic gesture.
Back then, Lutgen’s lawyer expressed satisfaction that the most severe allegation was dropped, but also insisted that there was no defamation of a civil servant, which is why an appeal was issued.
The first day of the appeal trial is scheduled for Monday afternoon.
