logo

Accusations made against lawyer Vitalie Țaulean


https://www.ipn.md/index.php/en/accusations-made-against-lawyer-vitalie-taulean-7967_1047432.html

Citizen Maria Olar accuses lawyer Vitalie Țaulean, who represented her in court in two cases, of not honoring his obligations. According to her, even if she signed contracts with the lawyer and this issued her with checks, at a moment he stopped presenting himself in court. Maria Olar said Vitalie Țaulean acted similarly in other cases in which she recommended him as a reliable lawyer.

In a news conference at IPN, Maria Olar said she started to use the services of the lawyer in April 2016. The ordinary court sentenced her to one year and six months in jail. The sentence was challenged in the Chisinau Appeals Court. She stayed behind bars in the period. Even if she has been under the supervision of an oncologist since 2014, the lawyer didn’t go to the hospital to take confirming documents to present them in court. The Appeals Court gave her a suspended sentence, but the woman decided to go to the Supreme Court of Justice as she pleaded not guilty. But the appeal filing deadline wasn’t respected owing to the lawyer.

According to the woman, Vitalie Țaulean promised that justice would be done to her, but this didn’t happen. She complained about the lawyer’s actions to the Lawyers Union, the Prosecutor General’s Officer, the National Anticorruption Center and the Anticorruption Prosecutor’s Office, but all in vain. She invited the lawyer to come to the news conference and state his position, but this refused.

Svetlana Gorobeț, another person who has what to reproach Vitalie Țaulean for, said that last May her grandson signed a contract with the lawyer, but this appeared in court only once and not even at a hearing, but only before the judge to presente his mandate. Afterward, the lawyer didn’t answer the phone for 11 months, if only for several times when he invoked health reasons. They demanded that the documents and money should be returned to them, but obtained nothing.

The woman called on other clients who suffered as a result of the lawyer’s deeds to make these cases public.