The lawyer, Faris Al-Asha, encountered Article 62 in 2018 when the
President refused to grant him permission to litigate against a case
led by a trainee lawyer.
Al-Asha sought to file a criminal complaint in a case of fraud and
dishonesty, supported by data and documents proving the validity of
the complaint. However, the President of the Bar Association,
Irsheidat, refused to grant permission to file the complaint in its
penal part and accepted the rights related part of it.
He refused to provide an explanation since “the reasons were too
complex to get into.”
The complainant says that the rejection of the penal part of the case
weakened his case and “made it lose its essence and the support of
evidence. Both the criminal and the rights parts are linked and
complement one another in establishing the facts and assessing the
extent of the damage.”
The practicing lawyer was forced to “file a personal complaint and
issue a decision preventing his opponent from traveling and brought in
the guarantor who signed the promissory notes.”
Al-Asha complains that withholding the litigation permission “weakened
the case and made it lose its essence. It resulted in a meager
financial settlement that did not exceed a quarter of the real claim
value.”
Moreover, “the actual perpetrator escaped punishment and was granted
immunity to proceed in the path of deceit, and this is an insult to
lawyers and an infringement of the Constitution.”
According to an electronic statement issued by the Companies Control
Department, the trainee lawyer was pairing his training as an attorney
with work in trade. He was traveling from Jordan, to Saudi Arabia and
to Ukraine. This is a clear violation of the law of the Bar
Association, which requires the member to be available full-time.
The facts of the case show that the trainee lawyer violated Article 11
on training conditions.