Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram
Attorney since 2010, defender of human rights, expert in litigation, constitutional, civil and criminal law. She specialises in cases related to the rule of law and judicial independence as well as the defence of minority rights. Free Courts, Committee for the Defence of Justice, Professor Zbigniew Hołda Association
A just verdict is one in which my client has had access to an independent court at every stage of the proceedings; his or her constitutional rights and guarantees have been upheld; and lastly, the decision that is taken by the judge is within the bounds of the law.
•••
I always wanted to be a lawyer. I would love to be able to give you some interesting story like, “my life suddenly changed and I decided to be a lawyer”. It was actually all terribly boring. I never wanted to be a teacher or a nurse or a librarian and I always thought the legal profession was amazing. My dad was a prosecutor and later became a notary. Unfortunately, he died when I was really small so he did not have time to have an impact on my life in any meaningful way so perhaps that is why I never thought about being a prosecutor. For me, being an attorney meant independence: you could decide things for yourself and how you develop professionally. Deep down I also felt that you could change the world by being an attorney and I do not think I was wrong.
•••
When I became a mother, my life and my view of the world changed. I thought I understood what candidates in elections meant when they said: “I would like to make this world a better place for my son and daughter”. My child had a lot of health problems but even for me, a well-paid lawyer, the constant struggle with the healthcare system was extremely difficult. At the time, I remember thinking “God! What must those less privileged in life, minorities, discriminated communities feel like when they have to struggle with the state?” I started to help the Nobody’s Children Foundation (now Empowering Children Foundation). I took on a pro bono case that concerned “other sexual activities” with an eight-year-old girl. It was a difficult and long case that had been in the Supreme Court twice but I managed to get the man sentenced to unconditional imprisonment. I was a very young lawyer at the time and I had never experienced the practical agency of the profession before. Nobody believed the girl, except her parents, which is a classic situation in Poland, but thanks to my determination she will most likely have the chance to lead a normal, happy life. All because someone came along and said that what he was doing was wrong and he should be punished. The system worked just as it should.
•••
But what is justice when you defend a paedophile or a murderer? Do I have any moral objections? Can I sleep at night? I was once selected to be the public defender of a paedophile. It was incredibly difficult because you are not allowed to refuse such cases and at the time my child was only five years old. But justice is first and foremost about providing all citizens with procedural and systemic guarantees regardless of what they have done, and this is often not comprehended in Poland. Even a ‘beast’ regardless of the deed he has committed should have equal access to the law. This is why human rights activist Professor Adam Bodnar was correct in asserting the rights of (murderer) Kajetan P. who was led away in combination hand- and leg-cuffs. It was not necessary. Justice is all about preserving the legal guarantees that apply to all citizens.
•••
An attorney cannot be exempt from the attorney-client privilege, especially if he or she is the defence counsel. Full stop. This is unbreakable and cannot be compromised in any way for the good of the system or society. This is the very essence of a public trust professional. If an attorney violates this promise, reveals some secrets, he or she should immediately remove his or her gown, and ask to be struck off the roll. It is our statutory duty to act in the interests of our clients and we can never abuse that trust. We cannot step out of our role. It is as simple as that. Yes, it can sometimes be very difficult if, for example, I had to defend (the government’s right-wing Minister of Justice) Zbigniew Ziobra. But I think I am free to assume that that I am and never will be Minister Ziobro’s first choice as personal defence counsel. But if I was, I could not refuse. All I could do in such a case would be to talk to my client, to tell him my experience in fighting for the rule of law, and highlight the differences in our approach. I would ask him whether he believed that there was a relationship of trust between us and if in fact there was no trust, I would not be able to conduct such a case. Trust is the foundation of the legal profession.
•••
Free Courts was spontaneous. Before recording the first video, the aim of which was to defend the independent judiciary in July 2017, I did not actually know Michal Wawrykiewicz. Suddenly I got a text message from him with a script and a proposal to record videos about the rule of law: “Tomorrow at 13:00 on Wiejska Street”. I picked up Marysia Ejchart-Dubois, with whom I had already worked as part of the Hołda Association, and also Paulina Kieszkowska-Knapik. A week after Free Courts came into being, we gave speeches in the evening on Plac Krasińskich, where there were thousands of people as far as the eye could see.
