Authorized account of how the Polish State treated Prof. Waldemar Gontarski

Case No.: DZ 1/26

Disciplinary Court of the Warsaw Bar Association, ul. Lekarska 7, 00-610 Warsaw — Minutes

Minutes of the session of the Disciplinary Court of the Warsaw Bar Association held on 17 February 2026 at 19:00, in the following composition:
Presiding Judge: Attorney Ewa Bojanowska
Members: Attorney Dr Małgorzata Eysymontt; Attorney Stefan Jaworski (rapporteur)
With the participation of the Deputy Disciplinary Officer of the Warsaw Bar Association, Attorney Maciej Kaczmarek
Recording clerk: Attorney Katarzyna Wróbel‑Koczułap
In the matter of the motion filed by Attorney Waldemar Józef Gontarski on 7 January 2026 for the revocation of the temporary suspension from the practice of the profession.

Upon calling the case, the following appeared:
Deputy Disciplinary Officer of the Warsaw Bar Association, Attorney Maciej Kaczmarek
Respondent: Attorney Waldemar Józef Gontarski
Defence counsel for the respondent: Attorney Ryszard Kalisz — power of attorney for defence granted into the record.
Did not appear.

The Presiding Judge presented the case.

The respondent indicated the annexes to his letter of 9 February 2025, which he wished to add to the case file.
At this point, the respondent submitted to the file the documents constituting the annexes to the letter of 9 February 2025.

The respondent maintained his motion to revoke the temporary suspension from the practice of the profession. He emphasised that his situation does not concern the “particularly justified circumstances” referred to in Article 95j(1) of the Law on the Bar, and that the statement of reasons contains not a single factual circumstance that could justify further temporary suspension. In his view, the Disciplinary Officer took into account alleged acceptance of so‑called bribes by the respondent, which did not take place.

The respondent stressed that he had never been charged with inducing clients to transfer funds to him. He drew attention to the illegality of evidence, namely the seizure of three attorney’s notebooks containing notes covered by attorney‑client privilege, which was violated, and which information was used by law‑enforcement bodies in other proceedings against third parties, as he learned from television programmes. He argued that his defence counsel was prevented from accessing documents gathered in the case file, as they had been seized by law‑enforcement officers. He raised facts concerning possible denunciations against him by another attorney. He described the conduct of law‑enforcement bodies and acts of violence against him during pre‑trial detention, about which he informed the public prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of Justice. He stated that the European Commission had brought an action against Poland in relation to the conduct to which he had been subjected. He pointed to the continued trivialisation of the opening of secure envelopes containing information protected by attorney‑client privilege and the lack of appropriate reaction from the Bar’s self‑government. He stated that three letters had been seized, including a letter to his defence counsel. He argued that the Bar’s disciplinary bodies did not conduct their own proceedings but relied on proceedings conducted by the common law‑enforcement authorities. He stated that the criminal proceedings against him were heading toward discontinuance but had not yet been concluded. The indictment was filed with the Warsaw Regional Court; for reasons of procedural economy the case is currently being conducted by the Katowice Regional Court. The respondent is seeking transfer of the case to another regional court. He added that the indictments duplicate the legal classification, which was not verified at the preparatory stage.

The respondent’s defence counsel argued that the respondent’s motion is well‑founded and should be granted. He stated that the respondent served as the Polish Government’s agent before the Court of Justice of the European Union, during the tenure of the Law and Justice (PiS) government and Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. The relationship between a client and an attorney is extremely delicate. The period October–November 2023 was a time of detentions of many persons who had knowledge of how the prosecution functioned under the PiS government. The Bar is to protect the public interest, and it behaved appropriately in this respect during the PiS government. Counsel stressed that the aim of the respondent’s detention was not his conviction but to make him reveal what he knew about, inter alia, the “Justice Fund” case. He emphasised that the application of Article 97j of the Law on the Bar cannot be automatic. He underscored the notorious application of pre‑trial detention by courts following the recommendations of the Prosecutor General. He argued that disciplinary proceedings cannot automatically replicate the findings of criminal proceedings but may conduct their own proceedings, which they should do. He stated that in the correctional facility the respondent was beaten, inter alia, for notifying the Ministry of Justice, and that he was beaten four times, with categorical breaches of rules. He pointed to a gross breach of the respondent’s attorney‑client privilege in the proceedings conducted against him.

Counsel further argued that the prosecution not only admits evidence obtained unlawfully but also seeks witnesses willing to testify against the respondent in exchange for certain benefits. He stated that the Bar should prevent this rather than passively accept it. He submitted that there exist circumstances justifying the cessation of the continued suspension from the practice of the profession in respect of the respondent. He stated that witnesses in the proceedings against the respondent are withdrawing. He added that the respondent has suffered not only infamy but also a lack of means of subsistence. In conclusion, he supported the respondent’s motion as fully justified.

The Deputy Disciplinary Officer moved that the respondent’s motion be dismissed. In his assessment, the grounds underlying the order of 7 October 2025 remain valid. He stated that the Disciplinary Court had the indictment and its statement of reasons as well as the remaining evidence and made its own findings in this respect, which resulted in the currently binding order. The Disciplinary Court explained what the special circumstances justifying temporary suspension from practice consist of. He referred to the application of a custodial isolation measure against the respondent for 16 months. He argued that the new circumstances on which the respondent bases his motion are mere assertions unsupported by relevant evidence. There are no new circumstances to justify the motion.

In response to the Court’s question to the Disciplinary Officer:
Actions were undertaken after 7 October 2025 and, to the Deputy Disciplinary Officer’s knowledge, were transmitted to the Disciplinary Court. An order was issued amending the order on the presentation of charges; access to the criminal case file was not carried out.

The respondent, ad vocem:
The Disciplinary Officer relied on the files of the Court of Appeal and made no new findings in this case. Those were made by the prosecutorial (disciplinary‑officer) unit, not by the Disciplinary Court.

The Presiding Judge ordered a recess for deliberation on the decision.
The parties left the courtroom.
After the recess, the appearances were as before the recess.
The Presiding Judge announced the order.

The session ended at 20:27.

Recording clerk: Attorney Katarzyna Wróbel‑Koczułap
Presiding Judge: Attorney Ewa Bojanowska

Minutes of the session of the Disciplinary Court of the Warsaw Bar Association of 17 February 2026.