Former judge Milosav Zekić was granted admission to the Bar Association in 2021, despite having been convicted of endangering safety and inflicting minor bodily harm at that time.

Documentation obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting of Montenegro (CIN-CG) reveals that Zekić was accepted into the Chamber on September 7, 2021, while a final verdict was still active, resulting in a five-month probation sentence due to his involvement in a fight.

As per the Law on the Bar, eligibility for inclusion in the lawyer’s directory is granted only to individuals who have not been convicted of a criminal offense rendering them unworthy to practice law.

However, the Bar Association of Montenegro (BAMC) stated to CIN-CG that “not every conviction translates to unworthiness to practice law.”

The President of the Chamber, Danilo Micovic, noted, “Attorney Zekić was registered during the previous Board of Directors’ tenure, which suggests that they evaluated all circumstances and determined there were no hindrances to his entry in the Register of Attorneys of the Bar Association of Montenegro.”

Former Chamber President Zdravko Begović informed CIN-CG that the decision stemmed from the fact that he was not sentenced to more than six months in prison, and the two offenses do not categorize under those specified by the Statute of the AKCG as disqualifying for legal practice.

Nonetheless, the Law on Advocacy and the Statute of the AKCG fail to detail which crimes disqualify an individual from practicing law, indicating that the Board of Directors seems to make these determinations arbitrarily.

In April 2019, Zekić received a suspended sentence from the Basic Court in Kotor for two offenses—endangering security and causing minor bodily harm. The decision made by a former judge of that court, now a Constitutional Court judge, Momirka Tešić, clarified that no mitigating or aggravating factors were identified concerning the accused, leading to a five-month suspended sentence that would not be enforced if no new criminal act occurred within two years of the final ruling, which was established on September 11, 2019.

In December 2022, Zekić was rehabilitated by the Kotor court, leading to the erasure of his sentence from records; however, he was accepted into the Chamber almost a year and a half prior to this rehabilitation.

Recently, Vesna Medenica, the former President of the Supreme Court and Begović’s client, was sentenced to six months in prison for previously concealing ongoing criminal proceedings against Zekić from the Judicial Council. This concealment enabled Zekić to resign from his position as a judge of the Basic Court in Rožaje and evade dismissal and disciplinary actions.

Zekić received both the official’s remuneration and severance pay while continuing his work as a lawyer.

Delays in Proceedings Due to Absences

Numerous reports indicate that one reason for the judicial system’s inefficiency is the obstruction of court proceedings by lawyers utilizing various tactics.

The OSCE’s Trial Monitoring Report in the Western Balkans highlighted that between September 2021 and March 2024, only an average of seven hearings were held monthly across all monitored court cases, attributing many absences directly to lawyers.

“Postponements primarily resulted from defendants being absent at 152 hearings—72 of which were postponed for health reasons, while defense attorneys were absent at 78 hearings, and judges were absent at 51 hearings,” the report elaborates.

The report also mentions that in addition to insufficient human and material resources, including the lack of courtrooms, the inactive approaches by judges have exacerbated numerous delays.

“In multiple instances, judges delayed hearings at a lawyer’s request even when procedural conditions were satisfied,” the document states.

The High Court in Podgorica, currently handling several high-profile cases involving former judiciary and police leaders, has started imposing penalties on lawyers for failing to attend scheduled hearings more frequently. However, the court did not respond to CIN-CG’s inquiry regarding whether they believe lawyers are causing court delays.

Attorney Veselin Radulović informed CIN-CG that procedural abuses by certain participants, including lawyers, have contributed significantly to the longstanding inefficiency of the Montenegrin judiciary.

“However, the primary accountability for this lies with the court, which does not fully utilize available mechanisms to prevent these abuses,” the lawyer emphasized.

Radulović illustrated his point with the trial of the former President of the Supreme Court, which faced over 20 postponements, most of which were deemed unjustified.

“I am encouraged by the measures taken by the new judge in this case, Vesna Kovačević. Actions were taken once the case was assigned to her, but this highlights the court’s unacceptable passiveness for two and a half years, allowing abuses by those who perceived a benefit in delaying proceedings,” Radulović assessed.

Another case against Medenica concerns her son, Miloš Pelvis, who has been identified as the head of a criminal organization implicated in drug and cigarette smuggling and unlawful judicial influence.

The trial recently recommenced after almost two years of delays due to the reassignment of the judge; the previous one was on long-term sick leave. Most postponements in this case resulted from absences of defendants, their defense attorneys, or requests for exemptions submitted to the court.

Multiple Criminal Proceedings Against Lawyers

In the past five years, criminal proceedings have been initiated against various lawyers, as reported by CIN-CG.

The SDT has accused lawyer Dimitrij Dapčević from Budva of establishing a criminal organization and laundering approximately 2.6 million euros for the leader of the Kavač clan, Radoja Zvicer. The trial’s commencement at the Higher Court in Podgorica was postponed last month to March 19.

The SDT denied our request for access to information, which sought details on all initiated proceedings against lawyers over the past five years. The Higher and Basic Prosecutor’s Offices in Podgorica also declined to provide this information, as did the prosecutor’s offices in Cetinje, Rožaje, and Kotor, while the prosecutor’s office in Pljevlja did not respond at all. Other prosecutor’s offices did submit the requested information; notably, the Nikšić ODT initiated two proceedings against lawyers, while one criminal proceeding was initiated against a lawyer in both Herceg Novi and Bijelo Polje. There were no initiated proceedings recorded in Bijelo Polje’s Higher State Prosecutor’s Office, nor in the basic prosecutor’s offices in Ulcinj, Berane, Plav, and Bar.

A fraud case has been filed against a lawyer from Nikšić, who, in June 2023, misled a public bailiff, received payment twice for the same service, and thus appropriated around 7,000 euros. He faces a potential prison sentence of one to eight years.

Another Nikšić lawyer is accused of deceiving a client into believing a case was pending before the Basic Court from December 2018 to October 2023 in which he represented the same client, obtaining 350 euros under false pretenses. He is being prosecuted for breach of trust, a charge that may result in a prison term ranging from six months to five years.

The Basic Court in Nikšić informed CIN-CG that both proceedings are currently ongoing.

A lawyer from Herceg Novi is charged with fraudulently withdrawing approximately 15,000 euros from a client’s account in March 2023, without the client’s consent. He faces charges for continued breach of trust and risks one to eight years in prison.

President of the Herceg Novi Basic Court Vesna Gazdić told CIN-CG that the indictment is still awaiting confirmation.

The Basic State Prosecutor’s Office in Bijelo Polje has initiated forgery proceedings against a lawyer suspected of utilizing a false power of attorney in June of last year, a charge that may lead to a penalty of up to three years in prison. The Basic Court in Rožaje notified CIN-CG that the trial is set to commence on May 29.

Lack of Transparency in Disciplinary Proceedings Delays Code of Ethics Adoption

The Bar Association has declined to provide information regarding disciplinary actions against lawyers, citing confidentiality.

Micovic explains that details of disciplinary proceedings cannot be disclosed without the consent of the individual facing action.

Although this is outlined in the Chamber’s Statute, it appears no efforts are being made to alter such provisions.

The Chamber’s opacity is further underscored by the absence of data, activity reports, disciplinary history, or any documents on their website that would allow for the analysis of their actions—unlike other legal associations like notaries or experts, which at least provide basic operational information online.

The Justice Strategy 2024-2027 notes that the public’s low confidence in the judiciary, including lawyers, is attributed to widespread political influence and corruption, highlighting the need to create effective accountability mechanisms.

“A major issue within the Bar Association is the delay in adopting a Code of Ethics for Lawyers and the inadequate management of disciplinary processes, which often leads to the statutes of limitations being reached,” states the strategy document.

The European Commission’s report on Montenegro from the previous year emphasizes “the absence of a code of ethics for lawyers.” The Strategy’s priorities stress the urgent need for the adoption of a Professional Ethics Code for Lawyers and the effective management of disciplinary proceedings.

Currently, the Chamber continues to rely on the Code of Professional Ethics for Lawyers, originally adopted by the Bar Association of Yugoslavia in 1999.

“We are presently working on revisions to the existing Code, which demands certain procedures and time,” the President of the Chamber remarked.

Lawyers Earn €140,000 for Ex Officio Defense

According to various sources, some lawyers appear to enjoy privileged positions regarding ex officio defense payments; however, CIN-CG has not discovered documents substantiating these claims. What has been uncovered shows that several lawyers received significantly higher payments than their peers from the Judicial Council (JC) last year.

Based on information obtained through access requests, CIN-CG discovered that the lawyer owed the most money for ex officio defense from the SS is Zorica Drašković from Podgorica—around 140,000 euros in connection with a case at the Higher Court in Podgorica regarding the so-called “coup d’état.”

Following Drašković, her colleague Aleksandra Rogošić received approximately 47,000 euros from the SS last year for her ex officio defense work across four cases. Several other attorneys collected between 30,000 and 40,000 euros.

The capacity for a lawyer to earn substantial profits from misdemeanor case costs is exemplified by Dragan Nikolic, who collected approximately 70,000 euros from misdemeanor courts in Podgorica, Budva, and Bijelo Polje, half of which was forcibly recovered.

The remaining approximate 500 lawyers on the SS payment list received vastly lower amounts, and around half of the lawyers registered with the Bar Association are not listed on this payment roster. The Chamber’s directory lists roughly 1,000 attorneys.

The Higher Court in Podgorica has not published any decisions regarding the appointment of ex officio lawyers since 2019, pointing to a lack of transparency and potentially indicating abuse. The order in which lawyers are appointed or who is next in line is no longer available. Previously, this information was provided on the Court’s website.

The Higher Court in Podgorica did not respond to CIN-CG’s inquiries regarding these inconsistencies.

“Regrettably, a practice has developed over the years where a select group of ‘privileged’ lawyers garner substantial payments from the state budget for ex officio defense, suggesting serious abuses that the SDT should have addressed long ago,” lawyer Radulović stated to CIN-CG.

It is improbable, according to Radulović, for a small number of lawyers to accumulate tens or hundreds of thousands of euros annually from the state budget in this manner without it being an abuse of office and ignoring the order on the list of lawyers.

“This exemplifies the unlawful exploitation of an official position to secure financial gain for a small group of lawyers, encompassing fundamental elements of the offense of abuse of office. Such abuse can yield grave repercussions for the judicial system’s functionality as it raises questions regarding the motivations behind specific lawyers receiving privileges and whether they are reciprocating favors to the judges and prosecutors enabling it,” Radulović emphasized.

The lack of publication of decisions regarding appointed ex officio defense attorneys, particularly before the High Court where significant criminal cases are processed, adds to suspicions of a corrupt scheme enabling select individuals to reap large financial benefits, while simultaneously jeopardizing the lawful operation of the judiciary and the defense rights of defendants represented by favored attorneys, Radulović assessed.

Last year, prosecutors’ offices allocated approximately 166,000 euros for ex officio defense among 326 lawyers, with all attorneys receiving comparable amounts—mostly just a few thousand euros.

With recent adjustments to the Law on the State Prosecutor’s Office, a prosecutor can incur a minor disciplinary penalty if they assign an ex officio defense attorney to a suspect without valid justification, contrary to the Bar Association’s listing order.

However, the Judicial Council lacks available data concerning the total costs incurred by courts related solely to ex officio defense payments last year, yet at the end of 2024, it owed lawyers nearly a million euros across various reasons.

Over One Third of Lawyers Believe Their Peers Engage in Bribery

In a survey conducted by the HRA titled “Perception of Corruption by Judiciary Actors,” approximately five percent of surveyed prosecutors perceive that some lawyers bribe judges and prosecutors. A similar perspective is held by 9.5 percent of judges, while 15.2 percent of experts share the same view. Notably, the largest cohort among lawyers believe this to be true, with 36.7 percent expressing suspicions of their colleagues engaging in bribery.

Lawyer Radulović remarks that this perception indicates a lack of trust among legal practitioners in their colleagues’ integrity.

“This information is concerning, as lawyers inherently possess a deeper awareness of the issues afflicting the judicial system,” he highlighted.

A total of 41 prosecutors, 95 judges, 92 experts, and 109 lawyers participated in the HRA survey conducted between July and September 2024.

Many respondents also indicated the possibility of conflict of interest relating to lawyers’ memberships in the Prosecutorial and Judicial Councils. The latest changes to the Law on State Prosecutors’ Office have restricted the number of lawyers allowed in the Prosecutorial Council to just one.

Interestingly within the survey, judges and prosecutors recognized a high level of professional expertise in only about 19 percent of lawyers.

Over 40 percent of lawyers reported awareness of other lawyers neglecting to pay income tax to the state.

Radulović, however, asserts that the current taxation system for lawyers is unfair and discriminatory, explaining that the basis for calculating various contributions amounts to 150 percent of the average monthly salary in Montenegro:

“This taxation method was enacted for lawyers in 2013, and it represents an inappropriate and unjust burden on taxpayers without promoting better tax compliance, as fewer lawyers can reasonably manage this fiscal load,” he remarked.

He pointed out numerous issues the Bar Association has evaded discussing for over 15 years or has sometimes participated in creating.

“Consequently, a small fraction of lawyers, who garner substantial state budget allocations under questionable circumstances, obstruct judicial processes, and whose actions go unaddressed by state authorities or the Bar Association, have crafted an environment fostering a negative public perception of the entire legal profession and neglecting numerous issues undermining the legal field’s efficient operation.”

To alleviate the public’s negative perception of this profession, it would be prudent for the Chamber to enhance its transparency and for professionals failing to adhere to ethical standards to be held accountable.

News