The Saga Continues – The lady lawyer who represents the clinic that “Don’t judge you, inject you”, thinks that I was not allowed to publish her notification on Reddit, as a violation of GDPR!

Do you know that I was threatened that they would sue me because I criticized a clinic that seems to be operating clandestinely? The same clinic that does raffles for cosmetic surgeries and ads that appeal to the victims’ anxieties and emotions to propose medical procedures.

Well, the saga continues!

I avoided personally criticizing the lawyer on the grounds that she is not good at it, because I thought she did her due diligence as a lawyer. After all, everyone is entitled to a lawyer and implicitly, the lawyer must exist even for the most dangerous man.

I support the right to a lawyer, and I consider the lawyer’s participation in court essential, but the whole situation is embarrassing.

The lawyer is now upset that I published the notice addressed to me on the Internet, because by doing so I would have violated professional secrecy (???).

She invokes two articles, respectively Art. 35 paragraph (1) of Law 51/1995: "(1) The contact between the lawyer and his client cannot be embarrassed or controlled, directly or indirectly, by any state body."from which I draw the conclusion that I am more recently a body of the statute.

In short, I am the state 😂. Besides the fact that her notification is not a contract between lawyer and client, but a notification addressed to me (which, besides being of public interest, I have the right to disclose that it is addressed to me), what else can I say. But I appreciate the compliment!

She also quoted me an article from the statute of the lawyer profession, an inter-partes document (no, it does not apply to me because I am not a UNBR member) and which has something else in the article she cited: "In relations with the courts, with the Public Ministry, with other authorities and public institutions, with legal entities and natural persons with whom he comes into contact, the lawyer is obliged to behave in a dignified, civilized and loyal manner."

I am glad that the lady lawyer finds that she must have a dignified, civilized and loyal behavior! I agree.

The lady also cites Article 6 of the GDPR, to claim that I am not allowed to publish the data that she considers personal – that is "NAMEs" her form of profession (which coincides with her name), her electronic signature (???) and her professional data.

Because it doesn’t hurt to read the law, look at what it says in Article 6 paragraph 1 of the GDPR:

(1) Processing is lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following conditions applies […] (f) the processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the operator or a third partyunless the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject prevail, which require the protection of personal data, in particular when the data subject is a child. […]

The lady threatens me that she will file a complaint with the ANSPDCP and that I will spoil her image and sue me.

I have to say only one thing in the litigation and it ends: "No one is heard alleging his own body" – that is, no one can rely on his own fault in support of his interests.

If your notification is of a nature to harm your image, it is possible that the reason for this is due to what is found in the content of the notification.

Madam lawyer, you are not ready! I am ready to discuss this consideration with you in court.