<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201cIn order to effectively provide legal aid in the broad sense of this term, that is not only as a legal counsel, an advocate has to be covered by LPP,\u201d says advocate Miko\u0142aj Pietrzak in an interview he gave to Jacek D\u0105browski.<\/p>\n
However, it does happen that the authorities of the justice system interpret LPP very narrowly.<\/p>\n
\u201cI have personally been called twice to appear in court where, as it turned out, I was supposed to, upon a motion of one of the parties, testify as to the circumstances covered by LPP,\u201d says advocate Miko\u0142aj Pietrzak. \u201cWhen I realised what the actual purpose for summoning me was, I did what any advocate should do and refused to answer any questions which would concern information covered by LPP. Apart from that, I informed the District Bar Council\u00a0 about this situation,\u201d adds advocate Miko\u0142aj Pietrzak.<\/p>\n
In the interview, advocate Miko\u0142aj Pietrzak also referred to the recent announcements on conducting inspections in law firms which were made by the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection (GIODO). \u201cI am sure that these announcements will not, in the least bit, lead to violations of data protected by LPP […] If, however, a GIODO inspector came to my law firm and wanted to conduct an inspection, it would be a huge problem from a practical point of view. An advocate should not allow any monitoring activities which could, even potentially, pose a danger to LPP,\u201d says advocate Miko\u0142aj Pietrzak.<\/p>\n