Listen to the article
Montenegro Bar Association Defends Constitutional Court Nominee Against Criticism
The Bar Association of Montenegro issued a strong defense of attorney Mirjana Vučinić, who was recently nominated as a judge for the Constitutional Court by President Jakov Milatović, following criticism from Deputy Prime Minister Momo Koprivica.
The controversy emerged after Koprivica publicly stated that President Milatović likely lacked “complete information” about Vučinić’s professional background, particularly her representation of the company “Bemax” in public procurement cases. This comment appeared to question Vučinić’s suitability for the judicial position.
In their response, the Bar Association emphasized a fundamental principle of legal practice: attorneys are not tied to the “status and other personal and social characteristics” of their clients, but rather protect legal interests based solely on the law. The Association drew a parallel with medical professionals, noting the absurdity of suggesting that doctors should refuse care to patients based on personal or political considerations.
“Lawyers are professionals who, through their function and the principle of freedom of representation, ensure that every person, regardless of social status, financial situation, or political affiliation, has equal access to justice,” stated the Association in their public release, signed by president Danilo Mićović.
The statement expressed particular concern that Koprivica, himself a lawyer holding a high government position, would “without any basis, very lightly give very harsh qualifications towards individuals.” The Bar Association noted that such comments seem designed to “instrumentalize claims” against specific persons without proper legal procedure.
The organization highlighted that Vučinić was proposed for the Constitutional Court position precisely because of her professional accomplishments and personal achievements. They lamented that in Montenegro, “neither professionalism, nor work engagement, nor a spotless career” seems to matter when partisan interests come into play.
Of significant concern to the Association was the apparent violation of international legal standards. They specifically referenced Article 18 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which expressly states that lawyers should not be identified with their clients solely for performing their professional duties.
The statement also cited a recommendation from UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Satterthwaite’s latest report on judicial independence, which directly advised that “representatives of the Government and elected officials should refrain from making statements or otherwise linking lawyers to their clients.”
This incident highlights ongoing tensions within Montenegro’s political and judicial systems. The country, which has been working toward European Union membership, has faced pressure to strengthen judicial independence and rule of law as part of its accession process.
The controversy comes at a sensitive time for Montenegro’s Constitutional Court, which plays a vital role in interpreting the constitution and resolving disputes between branches of government. A fully functioning and independent Constitutional Court is considered essential for the country’s democratic development and EU aspirations.
The Bar Association’s forceful response underscores the legal community’s concerns about political interference in judicial appointments and the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between legal representation and the personal or political characteristics of clients in a functioning democracy.
Verify This Yourself
Use these professional tools to fact-check and investigate claims independently
Reverse Image Search
Check if this image has been used elsewhere or in different contexts
Ask Our AI About This Claim
Get instant answers with web-powered AI analysis
Related Fact-Checks
See what other fact-checkers have said about similar claims
Want More Verification Tools?
Access our full suite of professional disinformation monitoring and investigation tools
12 Comments
This dispute over the judicial nomination process seems to be part of a larger political battle. It’s important that such decisions are made based on merit and qualifications, not political maneuvering or media manipulation.
I agree. The public deserves to have confidence that the judiciary is independent and free from undue influence, whether from political figures, media outlets, or other powerful interests.
It’s concerning to see accusations of media manipulation being thrown around, especially when they involve high-level political figures. This highlights the need for transparency and impartiality in the judicial nomination process.
I share your concern. It’s critical that the public has confidence in the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Any appearance of political interference or bias could undermine the public’s trust.
This case underscores the delicate balance between a lawyer’s professional obligations and the public’s perception of their work. The Bar Association makes a valid point, but the optics of certain client representations can still be problematic.
You raise a fair point. While lawyers must zealously defend their clients, they also have a responsibility to consider the broader implications of their actions and how they may be perceived by the public.
This is an interesting case of media manipulation and the importance of maintaining impartiality in the legal profession. It’s crucial that judges and lawyers uphold the rule of law and defend the rights of all citizens, regardless of their political affiliations or background.
I agree. Lawyers should focus on the legal merits of a case, not personal or political factors. This helps ensure a fair and independent justice system.
The criticism of Vučinić’s representation of the company ‘Bemax’ in public procurement cases raises valid concerns about potential conflicts of interest or undue influence. However, the Bar Association’s defense of her qualifications and independence is also worth considering.
Exactly. This case highlights the need for a nuanced and balanced approach, where both the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system are prioritized.
The Bar Association makes a fair point – lawyers are bound to protect their clients’ legal interests, not pass judgement on their personal or political status. This principle helps maintain the integrity of the legal process.
Absolutely. Lawyers shouldn’t be penalized for representing unpopular or controversial clients. As long as they operate within the bounds of the law, their choice of clients shouldn’t be used against them.