Noch kein Inhalt verfügbar.
Art. 15 BGFA — Duty to Report
#Doctrine
#1. Legislative History
N. 1 Art. 15 BGFA derives from the Federal Council's draft of the Lawyers Act (Message of 28 April 1999, BBl 1999 6059). The Federal Council justified the provision by the need to strengthen the information base of the cantonal supervisory authorities: courts and administrative authorities are in daily direct contact with lawyers and can therefore observe violations of professional rules at first hand. Without a formal duty to report, such knowledge could remain hidden from the supervisory authority (BBl 1999 6059).
N. 2 The Federal Council further emphasised that the authorities' duty to report does not preclude the possibility of private complaints: «Reports by third parties, in particular by the client or the opposing party, are not excluded» (BBl 1999 6059). The parliamentary deliberations produced no substantive amendments; Art. 15 was adopted without controversy. In contrast to the lawyer's own duty of notification under Art. 12 lit. j BGFA, the reporting duty under Art. 15 BGFA is directed at authorities and does not confer on the lawyer concerned any subjective right to inaction by the reporting authority.
N. 3 The Act entered into force on 1 June 2002 (AS 2002 863). Art. 15 BGFA has not been revised since. The provision has been supplemented by numerous cantonal implementing acts, some of which provide for more far-reaching reporting mechanisms (e.g. Art. 32 para. 3 KAG/BE; § 39 AnwG/ZH).
#2. Systematic Classification
N. 4 Art. 15 BGFA is located in the third section of the BGFA («Supervision», Arts. 14–22), which establishes the system of oversight for the professional practice of lawyers. The section is structured on three regulatory levels: establishment of the supervisory authority (Art. 14), flow of information to the supervisory authority (Art. 15), and coordination between cantonal supervisory authorities in cross-cantonal disciplinary proceedings (Art. 16).
N. 5 Art. 15 BGFA is closely connected with Art. 14 BGFA, which obliges the cantons to designate a supervisory authority, and with → Art. 17 BGFA, which governs disciplinary measures. Art. 15 BGFA is the procedural link: without information, the supervisory authority cannot effectively fulfil its function as constituted by Art. 14 and empowered by Art. 17. The provision also flanks ↔ Art. 12 lit. j BGFA (lawyer's self-reporting duty upon loss of personal requirements) and creates a complementary authority-based system for supplying information to the supervisory authority.
N. 6 Para. 1 and para. 2 distinguish according to the jurisdiction of the reporting authority. Cantonal authorities report to the supervisory authority of their own canton (para. 1); federal authorities report to the supervisory authority of the canton in whose register the lawyer is enrolled (para. 2). This distinction corresponds to the allocation of jurisdiction for disciplinary proceedings and the connection to the canton of registration: the canton of registration holds all disciplinary information and the register data under Art. 5 BGFA, which is why federal authorities report directly to that canton (judgment 5A_175/2008 of 8 July 2008, consid. 5.1). The provision is also systematically related to → Art. 16 BGFA, which governs coordination in cross-cantonal disciplinary proceedings.
#3. Elements of the Provision / Normative Content
3.1 Authorities Subject to the Duty to Report
N. 7 Para. 1 obliges cantonal judicial and administrative authorities. This covers all organs of the administration of justice and public administration acting at cantonal or communal level: courts at all levels, public prosecutor's offices, administrative authorities, and other governmental bodies that come into contact with lawyers in the exercise of their functions. The enumeration in para. 1 is to be construed broadly; the decisive criterion is the quality of being a bearer of public authority at cantonal level. Para. 2 covers federal judicial and administrative authorities, in particular the Federal Supreme Court, the Federal Administrative Court, the Federal Criminal Court, and the federal administration.
N. 8 The reporting duty under Art. 15 para. 1 BGFA falls on the authority as such, not on individual officials. The internal organisation of the reporting process is a matter for cantonal law. In practice, the report is typically made by the presiding judge or the court presidency. More detailed rules may exist at cantonal level (e.g. Art. 32 para. 3 KAG/BE for the public prosecutor's office; § 39 para. 1 AnwG/ZH for courts and administrative authorities).
N. 9 Private individuals (clients, opposing parties, third parties) are not covered by Art. 15 BGFA. They may file supervisory complaints as informal remedies; according to the Federal Council's Message (BBl 1999 6059) and legal scholarship, they are expressly entitled to do so (Poledna, in: Fellmann/Zindel, BSK BGFA, 2nd ed. 2011, Art. 15 N 9). The authorities' duty to report and the possibility of private complaints are independent of each other (Administrative Court AG, judgment WBE.2023.187 of 20 December 2023, consid. II/1.2–1.3).
3.2 Trigger for Reporting
N. 10 Art. 15 para. 1 and para. 2 BGFA specify two triggers for reporting: first, the absence of personal requirements under Art. 8 BGFA (e.g. bankruptcy, criminal conviction, loss of the practising certificate), and second, incidents that could constitute a violation of professional rules (Art. 12 BGFA). For the second category, a suspicion standard applies: the authority need not prove a breach of duty; it suffices that facts indicate a possible violation.
N. 11 The term «incidents» is to be construed broadly. It encompasses procedural acts, conduct during hearings, violations of duties of notification and disclosure, correspondence contrary to professional standards, and misconduct that has come to the authority's attention in the exercise of its official functions outside court proceedings (Poledna, in: Fellmann/Zindel, BSK BGFA, 2nd ed. 2011, Art. 15 N 5–7). It is not required that the incident be connected to pending proceedings. Practical examples: leaving the courtroom during a main hearing (judgment 1B_321/2015 of 8 June 2016, consid. 5.2), submission of redacted evidence (Administrative Court AG, WBE.2023.187, consid. II/1.2), conflicts of interest in connection with a previous mandate (Cantonal Bar Supervisory Authority BE, AA 2015 125 of 8 June 2016, consid. III/29).
N. 12 For the trigger «absence of personal requirements», knowledge of the facts is required rather than mere suspicion (reflecting the wording «the absence», not «indications of a possible absence»). The provision thus imposes different requirements for the two reporting triggers, in keeping with the principle of proportionality: whereas the absence of personal requirements directly affects the conditions for registration and may in any case require deregistration (→ Art. 9 BGFA), a mere suspicion suffices for the second trigger.
3.3 Without Delay
N. 13 The report must be made without delay, i.e. without culpable hesitation, as soon as the reportable facts become known to the authority. This requirement is directed exclusively at the authorities subject to the duty to report and is formulated as a procedural rule. It has no effect in relation to private complainants. A late report by an authority does not preclude the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and has no bearing on the limitation period under Art. 19 BGFA (Administrative Court AG, WBE.2023.187, consid. II/1.3; Administrative Court ZH, VB.2007.00164 of 21 June 2007, consid. 2). The requirement to act without delay operates internally on the organisation and conduct of the authority; a breach of this duty may at most entail supervisory consequences for the authority concerned under cantonal law, but gives rise to neither a ground of nullity nor a procedural bar.
N. 14 The report requires no particular form; Art. 15 BGFA does not prescribe a specific procedure. However, cantonal law may enact formal and procedural requirements (Art. 34 para. 1 BGFA). The report is not an administrative act and does not confer party standing in the disciplinary proceedings on the reporting authority (Poledna, in: Fellmann/Zindel, BSK BGFA, 2nd ed. 2011, Art. 15 N 8).
3.4 Addressee of the Report
N. 15 Cantonal authorities report to the supervisory authority of their canton (para. 1). Federal authorities report to the supervisory authority of the canton of registration (para. 2). The canton of registration is determined pursuant to Art. 6 BGFA; a lawyer is in principle enrolled in only one canton. The federal rule (para. 2) ensures that proceedings before federal authorities and federal courts are also brought to the attention of the supervisory authority of the canton of registration, even if the violation was observed elsewhere.
N. 16 Upon receipt of a report, the cantonal supervisory authority is obliged to examine the matter in accordance with cantonal law and, where appropriate, to open disciplinary proceedings. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings serves the public interest and is in principle not discretionary, to the extent that there is sufficient suspicion of a violation of professional rules (Administrative Court AG, WBE.2023.187, consid. II/3.2; Administrative Court SG, B 2021/271 of 15 June 2022, consid. «Streitgegenstand»).
#4. Legal Consequences
N. 17 Art. 15 BGFA establishes a legal duty incumbent on the reporting authorities. It is not directly sanctioned; however, a breach — in particular where reporting would have been required to protect the public or persons seeking legal redress — may entail supervisory consequences for the responsible authority under cantonal law. The duty to report has no direct legal consequences in relation to the lawyer concerned; in particular, it does not constitute a ground for recusal against the reporting authority or its members (judgment 1B_118/2021 of 13 July 2021, consid. 4.1: «The mere fact that the prosecutorial management files a — objectively justifiable — disciplinary complaint against the defence lawyer with the supervisory authority for lawyers does not, according to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court set out above, constitute a ground for recusal»).
N. 18 A report under Art. 15 BGFA must be strictly distinguished from the filing of a criminal complaint. Judicial and administrative authorities may file a supervisory report without thereby simultaneously filing a criminal complaint under Art. 302 CrimPC or becoming a private claimant. This independence protects the supervisory structure of the BGFA from being instrumentalised for criminal procedural purposes. Conversely, courtroom disciplinary action under Art. 64 CrimPC or Art. 128 CPC does not preclude concurrent disciplinary action by the supervisory authority under the Lawyers Act (judgment 1B_321/2015 of 8 June 2016, consid. 5.4).
N. 19 The report leads to the initiation of a supervisory examination, not necessarily to formal disciplinary proceedings. The flow of information under Art. 15 BGFA also enables the supervisory authority to exercise a preventive monitoring function that extends beyond the individual incident: it acquires aggregated knowledge of a lawyer's conduct and can, where necessary — subject to the limitation period for prosecution under Art. 19 BGFA — take action.
#5. Contested Issues
5.1 Legal Character of the Without-Delay Requirement (Procedural Rule vs. Provision for Nullity)
N. 20 In legal scholarship and practice, the question arose whether a breach of the without-delay requirement prevents disciplinary prosecution. The Administrative Court of Zurich (VB.2007.00164 of 21 June 2007, consid. 2) and the Administrative Court of Aargau (WBE.2023.187, consid. II/1.3) characterise Art. 15 para. 1 BGFA in this respect as a mere procedural rule that has no bearing on the admissibility of disciplinary proceedings. A late report is without consequence, provided the limitation period under Art. 19 BGFA is observed. Poledna (in: Fellmann/Zindel, BSK BGFA, 2nd ed. 2011, Art. 15 N 9) shares this view. By contrast, the Administrative Court of Aargau expressly rejected an analogous application of the without-delay requirement to private complainants; such an extension finds no basis in the wording or in the Federal Council's Message (WBE.2023.187, consid. II/1.3).
5.2 Jurisdiction in Cases of Cross-Cantonal Activity
N. 21 It was disputed which supervisory authority has jurisdiction when a lawyer acts outside the canton of registration and causes an incident there. The St. Gallen case (Administrative Court SG, B 2021/271 of 15 June 2022) clarified the legal position for complaints against lawyers enrolled in the canton of registration: the cantonal supervisory authority is always competent for disciplinary proceedings against lawyers enrolled in its register, regardless of where the incident occurred. Art. 15 BGFA structures the information flow such that cantonal authorities always report to the supervisory authority of their own canton (para. 1), while federal authorities report directly to the canton of registration (para. 2). This distinction has been assessed as appropriate in legal literature, because all disciplinary-relevant information is accumulated at the canton of registration (Fellmann, Anwaltsrecht, 2nd ed. 2017, N 760–761; Poledna, in: Fellmann/Zindel, BSK BGFA, 2nd ed. 2011, Art. 15 N 3–4).
5.3 No Ground for Recusal of the Reporting Authority
N. 22 In isolated cases in practice, it was argued that filing a report under Art. 15 BGFA created a bias on the part of the reporting magistrate and excluded that person's further participation in the proceedings. The Federal Supreme Court firmly rejected this position: the filing of an objectively justifiable disciplinary complaint by the public prosecutor's office does not in itself constitute a ground for recusal under Art. 56 CrimPC (judgment 1B_118/2021 of 13 July 2021, consid. 4.1). The contrary result would allow defence lawyers to engineer the recusal of prosecutors through deliberate violations of professional rules, thereby in practice preventing the public prosecutor's office from fulfilling its statutory duty to report.
5.4 Concurrence with Courtroom Disciplinary Action
N. 23 Niklaus Schmid (Praxiskommentar StPO, 2nd ed. 2013, N 3 on Art. 64) took the view that violations of professional rules could only be sanctioned under the law governing lawyers and not under Art. 64 CrimPC. Jent (BSK StPO, 2nd ed. 2014, N 4 on Art. 64) disagreed, arguing that a disciplinary fine is an immediate procedural measure serving to ensure the orderly conduct of proceedings and thus has an independent purpose. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed Jent's position: courtroom disciplinary action and supervisory disciplinary sanctions under the Lawyers Act are not mutually exclusive (judgment 1B_321/2015 of 8 June 2016, consid. 5.4; judgment 2A.496/2005 of 23 January 2006, consid. 3.3). This parallelism has implications for the duty to report: a court imposing a disciplinary fine is simultaneously required under Art. 15 para. 1 BGFA to report the underlying incident to the supervisory authority.
#6. Practical Notes
N. 24 Scope of the duty to report in practice: Courts at all levels are required under Art. 15 para. 1 BGFA to file a report ex officio when, in the course of proceedings, they become aware of circumstances indicating a violation of professional rules. These include in particular: improper or misleading conduct in proceedings (judgments WBE.2023.187; 1B_321/2015), substantiated indications of witness tampering (judgment 1B_118/2021, consid. 4.2), conflicts of interest coming to light during proceedings (Cantonal Bar Supervisory Authority BE, AA 2015 125), and indications that personal requirements are no longer met (e.g. becoming aware of a debt enforcement register entry or a criminal conviction).
N. 25 No duty to report for private individuals, but entitlement to file a complaint: Private individuals (clients, opposing parties, third parties) may at any time file a supervisory complaint with the competent supervisory authority. They are not subject to any without-delay requirement and Art. 15 BGFA does not apply to them by analogy. The complaint is admissible provided the absolute limitation period of ten years under Art. 19 para. 3 BGFA has not yet expired (Administrative Court AG, WBE.2023.187, consid. II/1.3; Poledna, in: Fellmann/Zindel, BSK BGFA, 2nd ed. 2011, Art. 15 N 9; Art. 19 para. 1 and 3 BGFA).
N. 26 Dual function of the canton of registration as information hub: Through the flow of information from federal authorities provided for in Art. 15 para. 2 BGFA, the canton of registration consolidates all disciplinary-relevant incidents arising in proceedings before federal authorities. In conjunction with Art. 5 para. 2 lit. e BGFA (entry of disciplinary measures in the register) and Art. 16 BGFA (coordination in cross-cantonal disciplinary proceedings), a comprehensive system of professional supervision of lawyers is created, based on the canton of registration as the central information node. According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, this gives rise to a substantive interest in assigning officially appointed lawyers who are enrolled in the canton of registration (judgment 5A_175/2008 of 8 July 2008, consid. 5.1).
N. 27 Relationship to the lawyer's self-reporting duty: Art. 12 lit. j BGFA obliges the lawyer personally to report to the supervisory authority if the conditions for registration are no longer met. Art. 15 para. 1 BGFA supplements this self-reporting duty with an authority-based reporting duty that operates independently of the lawyer's cooperation. Together, both provisions ensure that the supervisory authority becomes aware of facts relevant to the register and to disciplinary supervision even without the lawyer's active participation. → Art. 12 lit. j BGFA; ↔ Art. 9 BGFA (deregistration).
N. 28 No subjective right of third parties to a report: The duty to report serves the public interest in effective supervision of lawyers. It does not confer any enforceable subjective right on third parties (e.g. the opposing party or the client) to have an authority file a report. A failure by an authority to report has — as set out above (N. 13) — no bearing on the admissibility of subsequent disciplinary proceedings and in particular does not give rise to a plea of forfeiture in favour of the lawyer concerned (Administrative Court AG, WBE.2023.187, consid. II/2.2).
Noch kein Inhalt verfügbar.