When investigating nanny arson, what disciplines should defense lawyers abide by in the trial?

The defense lawyer of nanny arson case is put on file for investigation, and the defense lawyer should abide by it in the trial. According to the news of WeChat WeChat official account of Guangdong Lawyers Association, Guangdong Lawyers Association recently sent an investigation team to Hangzhou, and initially found out that during the trial of Hangzhou nanny arson case, Dang Linshan, the defender of defendant Mo Moumou and lawyer of Guangdong Zengtai Law Firm, was suspected of seriously violating the court rules and leaving the court without authorization, which caused serious social impact. This behavior was suspected of violating the second paragraph of Article 35 of the Disciplinary Rules for Members of all china lawyers association.

Nanny arson defense lawyer was put on file for investigation. On the 22nd of the trial, the person in charge of the relevant department of the Guangdong Provincial Department of Justice responded that an investigation team had been sent to Hangzhou immediately after the incident. After reviewing the video of the trial, consulting relevant records and combining the judicial advice of the court of first instance, the investigation team initially determined that lawyer Dang Linshan was suspected of disobeying court discipline during the trial.

In order to leave the court privately, interfere with the normal progress of litigation, and use the internet to speculate on cases, causing serious social impact. According to the relevant provisions of the Lawyers Law and the Regulations on the Administration of Lawyers' Practice, the judicial administrative organ decided to impose administrative punishment on Dang Linshan's suspected illegal behavior.

The defendant's lawyer raised four objections to jurisdiction, and the judge explained that it was reasonable to reject them. On the morning of February 2, 65438+Kloc-0, the trial just started, and the defendant Mo Huanjing's lawyer Dang Linshan raised a jurisdictional objection, pointing out that not only the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court has jurisdiction, but also asked the Supreme People's Court to change the trial court, and asked to wait for the reply from the Supreme Court before the trial.

The presiding judge rejected it four times on the grounds that the people's court in the place where the crime was committed was under the jurisdiction of the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court according to law. When lawyer Lin Shan put it forward for the last time, he said that Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court was forcibly hearing the case and asked to withdraw the trial. Lawyer Lin Shan then left the court. When he left, he also told the defendant Mo Huanjing not to answer in court.

To sum up, the nanny arson case shows that the nanny training is not perfect. I hope it can be better.