Former equality commissioner under curruption investigation

Photo: Tairo Lutter

Corruption crimes department at Central Criminal Police is investigating conflict of interests by former gender equality commissioner Mari-Liis Sepper (37) who while in office entered into legal assistance contract with her brother Kalle-Kaspar Sepper (36) and the latter's law office. 

«Grant recipient has, while ordering the service of strategic litigation, ignored action, ignored Anti-Conflict of Interest and Corruption Act.» Such direct criticism is expressed towards ex-commissioner Ms Sepper by fresh audit of finance ministry analysing use of Norwegian monetary aid at the Bureau of Gender Equality during 2009–2014.

Violation of said Act is cited to be that, as commissioner in 2010–2015, Ms Sepper on July 11th 2014 entered into legal assistance contract with law office Sirel & Partnerid. Among the office’s current owners is a brother of Ms Sepper’s, sworn lawyer Kalle-Kaspar Sepper who, according to the audit, was among those who signed the contact.

Legally speaking, the case seems simple. The commissioner, standing for people’s rights, ought not to have offered works to her brother like this. Even if Estonia had had only one lawyer involved on labour law and that having been the brother of Mari-Liis Sepper (who on the law office website advertises himself mainly as right of obligation expert), the commissioner should have thereof notified the social minister who appointed her into office, who would then have granted the permission to hire the brother. This Ms Sepper never did.

Finance ministry says the final report of the audit is yet to be confirmed, but they have still informed the police already of a suspected violation of procedural restriction. Central Criminal Police corruption crimes department initiated investigation on March 24th. Even so, the ex-commissioner Ms Sepper is not under threat of criminal status as we have to do with misdemeanour proceeding.

The sum paid to commissioner’s brother’s law office from the Norwegian-financed project was €4,100. Probably, the equality commissioner’s bureau will have to pay that back to the financier. While outwardly the money is not big, it is still over half of the equality bureau’s yearly financial expenditure.

The likelihood of returning the money is also admitted by social ministry. «Depending on the result of the investigation, we may need to initiate the return of the,» said Kalle Killar, strategy and budget department head at the ministry.

Responding to the criticism in the summary of the audit, equality commissioner’s bureau justifies the hiring of Kalle-Kaspar Sepper by the urgency of the situation. Namely, in summer of 2014 the bureau needed a representative for labour dispute with Estonian branch of Danske Bank where a female employee returning from parental leave was not given her former post.

Regarding that dispute, equality commissioner sent inquiries to three law offices all at once: Lawin, Raidla Lejins & Norcous, and Sirel ja Partnerid. The latter was the only one who expressed readiness. At that, the selection of Mari-Liis Sepper’s brother Kalle-Kaspar Sepper was allegedly justified by him being the only one at the office with added competency out of another discrimination case.

The equality bureau indeed succeeded in winning the case eventually, as Danske Bank agreed to pay the woman €6,000 as compensation, and to cover the bureau its €3,275 in legal costs. Thus, for the commissioner’s bureau the case cost €825.

It took days to obtain explanations from the parties involved in this story. As, by Sunday night, Postimees finally got the comments, they came complete with threats of prosecution regarding the article about to be published. Not limited to that, ex-commissioner Ms Sepper attempted to block publication of her photo with the article as not permitted by her to do that.

---------------------

Comment

Mari-Liis Sepper, former equality commissioner

For the discriminated, representatives regarding court proceedings were sought for pursuant to strict procedure. Firstly, during the initial phase of the strategic litigation project, a whole list of law offices were sent the proposal to enter into cooperation. At that, the offices notified the commissioner of legal assistances price. Thereafter, with definite cases, the proposal to represent the discriminated was always sent to a minimum of three partners out of whom the cheapest and most competent lawyer was selected. Likewise with the case where the lawyer of law office Sirel & Partnerid was selected. I would underline that in the case at hand it was impossible to select any other representative as out of the three law offices, only one was interested in representing the victim.

---------------------

Comment

Kalle-Kaspar Sepper, sworn lawyer, partner at law office Sirel ja Partnerid

In July 2013, equality commissioner’s bureau addressed several Estonian law office regarding cooperation. Offer for cooperation was also extended to Sirel & Partnerid. On September 4th 2013, the law office forwarded its price offer and expressed willingness by lawyers at the office to represent the commissioner’s bureau and people suffering from discrimination. In its offer, the office noted its layers had sufficient experience in representing the discriminated, having formerly provided legal assistance to victims and reached mutually satisfying extrajudicial compromises, as well as representing clients in court disputes related to discrimination leading to positive result.  

On July 2nd, the commissioner’s bureau had recourse to three law offices, announcing they were seeking a representative for a person discriminated because of parenthood. The bureau underlined that as a decision by an extrajudicial body had already been made, contesting was urgent time wise. That very day, two law offices told the commissioner that they were not ready to deal with the issue. Law office Sirel & Partnerid answered that they were willing to represent the victim.  

In July 2014, statement of claim in the name of the victim was filed at Harju County Court. In spring 2015, the parties arrived at agreement pursuant to which the discriminator compensated as moral damage the sum asked for in claim by victim. Also, the discriminator covered all legal costs (incl. Costs of legal assistance and state fee).

The claim by journalist that the client agreement entered to solve the case might have been entered in a conflict situation is wrong and legally incompetent. The contract is with law office and not with a lawyer working there. The fact that the lawyer acquired a holding in the law office while the court proceeding was in progress makes neither the entry into contract nor its execution illegal. Representative for the discriminated was found by a transparent procurement and according to rules, and the proceeding was very successful for the discriminated as well as the strategic litigation project.

Considering that only one law office of the three was willing to accept eh work, it is not possible to talk about infringement of law seeing there are no individuals whose rights have been infringed. The fact of a person connected with an official works contractually at a company does not exclude the company from the right to participate in procurement.

Let me note that pursuant to current law and court practice, a published must prove evidence of all claims disclosed by him being truthful. That also if we have to do with the opinion of an auditor (thereat, I have no information if it is a final opinion at all or at project stage), which is legally clearly not right. My opinion is that as he claims are wrong, it is not appropriate to publish the article. Also, this is allegedly a situation in violation with presumption of innocence.

---------------------

Peculiar condition – the seeker of help must become hostage of court

At the initiative by former equality commissioner Mari-Liis Sepper, the bureau eventually even in written form established the procedure in violation with good legal practice where legal assistances was only promised to such who would refuse to compromise with opposite party in the dispute to come.

Essentially, this is extortion – we will help you if you help us to gain an important victory in court. The primary aim of the seeker of help – get help from equality commissioner’s bureau – herewith became secondary.

This is exactly the condition set at bureau for providing legal assistance, as insisted by Ms Sepper. In legalese, this was «strategic litigation», if the bureau finds for court disputes a partnering law office who will represent a «victim» in court at the bureau’s expense. For the «victim», the only binding condition was that she may not step out mid-dispute.

The goal may have been tempting – a court precedent, but the condition puts rights and needs of victim on back seat. Though the lawyers of the office dealing with «strategic litigation» found this an altogether acceptable condition, experts of Estonian civilian law beg to radically differ.

«This is in contradiction with good practice in administration of justice, as no individual may not be forced to go to court against her own will,» said sworn lawyer Carri Ginter.

---------------------

Comment

Indrek Niklus, private law department heart at justice ministry

Justice ministry may not pass a legal assessment on contractual conditions used by equality commissioner or other such conditions. We may only generally explain that arriving at a compromise within a civil court proceeding is for the parties involved an important right. Indeed, pursuant to principles of Estonian civil court proceedings, the court needs to direct parties involved towards compromise as the aim of court proceeding is solving a dispute not «production» of court judgments.

Agreements which rob parties their rights to arrive at a compromise in order to finish the court proceeding are generally in contradiction to vital principles of Estonian legal order. Meanwhile, it cannot be excluded that in certain situations there are sufficient substantiation for that and only by restriction of the right to compromise it is possible to achieve goals which outweigh rights of parties in court proceeding to shape the legal dispute according to their needs and desires.