The National Board of Justice rejected a request by the Lima Bar Association to suspend five of its members for six months over official actions. The board stated that the bar association lacks jurisdiction to discipline members for decisions made in the exercise of their constitutional functions.
The five board members submitted their resignations to the Lima Bar Association, citing what they described as a political direction taken by the institution. The bar association declined to accept the resignations, but the board argued that the guild holds no disciplinary power over individuals who expressed their will to disaffiliate.
The board also questioned the legal basis of the proceedings initiated by the bar association. It stated that the Ethics Code cited to justify the sanctions requires publication in the official newspaper El Peruano to take effect, a step the board said was not established.
Jurisdiction and membership dispute
The dispute centers on decisions by board members concerning the reinstatement of Supreme Prosecutor Patricia Benavides. The board stated that disagreement with its constitutional decisions cannot be turned into professional sanctions or used to pressure an autonomous state body.
The Ethics Council of the Lima Bar Association is scheduled to evaluate the suspension request on Wednesday, August 12, starting at 5:00 p.m. The proceedings target board members Gino Rios Patio, Maria Teresa Cabrera, Jaime de la Puente, German Serkovic Gonzales, and Cayo Galindo Sandoval for alleged professional ethical infractions.
Ethics complaint and July allegations
The precautionary measure was submitted by the Institute for Legal Defense and the National Human Rights Coordinator. The complaint accuses the five lawyers of three specific actions occurring in July of last year during their professional practice.
Among the cited actions was a request to reinstate Patricia Benavides as Attorney General while Delia Espinoza was serving in that role. The complaint also cited a request to the general commander of the National Police to use public force, an action the complainants described as characteristic of a de facto government.
The complaint further alleged a failure to fulfill the duty of transparency, asserting that these actions violated Ethics Code standards on respect for the law, probity, and professional integrity. The National Human Rights Coordinator called the case landmark due to its gravity, noting it led to a statement by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and warning that such conduct undermines public trust in the legal system.
