A tenant who has been Degewo in Berlin rented an asbestos flat in need of renovation and renovated with the permission of Degewo (without having been informed about the asbestos hazard), breathed in a dangerous amount of asbestos before he learnt years later that he had been exposed to such a danger.
When the tenant tried to find a solution with the landlord, the landlord was adamant and vehemently refused to pay a measly rent reduction, which would in no way have undone what had happened. But it would have been an attempt at an apology, the minimum level of decency that is expected between people. Degewo has not even shown this minimum of decency.
Even the court was unable to help the tenant, as the landlord had hired star lawyers who had also represented Julian Assange. This is clear from the correspondence from the law firm Attorneys Eisenberg, Dr König, Dr Schork which was published on Wikileaks. Here is a small extract:
"Mr Assange has asked me to write to you about disclosures of information that you have caused and induced, which could well endanger many people if published or disseminated more widely." Source Wikileaks
Despite their indignation about the "endangerment of numerous people", the law firm represented Degewo, a state-owned company that willingly accepted the "endangerment of numerous people".
It is debatable what ethical and moral responsibility a law firm bears when it represents a client who exposes thousands of people to danger.
Some argue that it is the duty of a law firm to guarantee a fair defence to every client, regardless of their actions. Others argue that a law firm is also ethically and morally responsible for the way it carries out its work and that it should not be part of a defence that puts other people at risk.
A law firm should conduct its business fairly and impartially by ensuring that rights and laws are respected, even if the client is a mass murderer. However, it should avoid manipulative arguments and a tactic based on victim-offender reversal to convince the court of a fictitious reality.
This situation is regrettable because it undermines public confidence in the rule of law and the ability of the legal system to deliver justice. It is important that such behaviour is denounced in order to create a culture in which rights and laws apply equally to all.
See also:
Health comes before money: An appeal to lawyer Dr Stefanie Schork
whose bread i eat whose song i sing