I would like to reply to the letter from Joe Falzon (Arguments not proved wrong, TMIS, 14 October) and would also like to point out that I am writing on my own behalf.

I start with what Mr Falzon said in the last two paragraphs of his letter and will then reply to what he said in the second paragraph.

Amongst other things, he implied that I was not sticking to facts. He should note that what I was doing was quoting verbatim from the Ombudsman’s decision, something which Mr Falzon persistently fails to do. What I said was backed by direct quotes from the Ombudsman’s decision. What Mr Falzon said seems to be backed only by what he thinks are the facts, as opposed to what the facts actually are. Is it too much for Mr Falzon to accept that when the Ombudsman specifically said that “In the light of the above considerations, I cannot conclude that there has been an act of misconduct on the part of the Directorate, which acted by what had been established by the Authority at the time.”, he actually meant that everything was above board “at the time” (again a quote from the decision of the Ombudsman)? 

It is felt that this point bears repetition as it seems to elude Mr Falzon altogether: the Ombudsman made it a point to mention in no uncertain terms that everything was done according to “what was established by the Authority at the time”. To everyone but Mr Falzon, those words can mean only that everything was correctly done by the standards of those times. However, intentionally or not, Mr Falzon insists on ignoring these facts altogether, something which in view of what is written below is to be expected from Mr Falzon.

Mr Falzon mentioned that there are no loopholes in his case. What type of loopholes is he talking about here? Are they the loopholes that would permit the turning of a blind eye to facts that are evident and glaring to all? Is the fact that the Ombudsman said that my client did no wrong and acted correctly one of those loopholes? Once again the answer to this question, whilst it will not be provided by Mr Falzon, will become crystal clear below.

I will now deal with what Mr Falzon said in my regard in respect of phone calls and letters. In the first place, he should know that, based on ethical principles (perhaps it would do Mr Falzon good if he were to learn what ethics is all about) related to our profession, lawyers never discuss cases relating to clients with the other party unless their own clients are present and preferably in the presence of the other party’s lawyer. At no point was I ever approached by one of my colleagues claiming that he or she was acting on behalf of Mr Falzon. It was exclusively that fact alone that precluded me from discussing his case with him on the phone or through any other means, and nothing else. What Mr Falzon does not realise (although he should) is that this ethical principle is mainly in place in order that the interests of both parties are safeguarded and for no other reason. This, Mr Falzon is refusing to appreciate, even though it was explained to him by me personally.

What happened in Mr Falzon’s case was that the first time I answered one of his letters on behalf of my client, Mr Falzon actually phoned me at my office in order to discuss the case. Out of politeness, I took the call and from the onset indicated to him that I would be only hearing him with absolutely no comment on my part about the case and that I would naturally inform my client accordingly. After listening to him for the best part of eight or 10 minutes, during which I kept repeating my position ad nauseam and nothing else – that is, that I could not discuss a case without the presence of my client or his lawyer – he, and not I, chose to hang up.

After that first phone call, Mr Falzon kept insisting and kept phoning me, once again against all the ethical principles by which we, as lawyers, are governed, at which stage I felt that the only way I could abide by such principles was to block his calls altogether, something which I duly did, and I absolutely and categorically refuse to offer any apologies for so doing.

Mr Falzon also mentioned that he sent a registered letter and that I refused it. I categorically refute that assertion. I always accept letters addressed to me. I invite him to send me written evidence that I refused any letter from him, in which case I will issue an apology immediately. However, as far as I know, I did not receive any registered mail from Mr Falzon. If I did refuse it, then he should have written evidence of such – something that I assure your readers he does not have.

I am leaving what Mr Falzon said about me in respect of my doing my homework for last. He may know that, as a rule of ethics (again, I suggest Mr Falzon looks up that term and maybe, just maybe, become acquainted with it), the contents of correspondence that passed between the parties at a preliminary stage are considered as written on a ‘without any prejudice’ basis and therefore confidential and there is an unwritten rule that no reference should be made to such correspondence when communicating with third parties (your readers). This is a point that seems to have eluded Mr Falzon, but has not eluded me.

However, since Mr Falzon chose to disregard this rule, I feel legally, morally and ethically justified to do likewise and would like to refer Mr Falzon to an email sent by him way back last May wherein he declared that he was ready to sign the declaration that he was objecting to and about which he was raising such a fuss and that he was receiving the payment concerned on an ex gratia basis if, and only if, my client were to pay him all arrears in full, i.e. going back to 1996. 

It would seem that all the nice talk uttered verbally and in writing through your newspaper and through other fora by Mr Falzon about justice and “humiliating conditions” which Mr Falzon seems to get so strung up about are susceptible to be thrown out of the window and allowed to go up in smoke against the payment of a sum of money. 

That actually means that, as far as Mr Falzon is concerned, he seems to be ready to forget all the talk of “justice”, so long as he is paid in full for 15 years. Mr Falzon has clearly given himself away.  He is not worried about signing an ‘ex gratia’ declaration because of what he has been saying, but he does not want to sign the said declaration because that would signify an renunciation on his part of arrears relating to a period prior to what was actually recommended, I repeat, recommended, by the Ombudsman. That is the extent to which Mr Falzon’s ‘principles’ of justice are important to him.

I do not feel that I need to demonstrate any further as to what Mr Falzon’s real intentions actually are and on what ‘principles’ they are based. They are clear to one and all.

Joseph P. Bonello LL.D

NAXXAR