Pro: A lawyer is caught having sex during a zoom legal hearing

An excerpt from a zoom discussion in the Peruvian court was published and became the talk of the day on all social networks and media channels, in which a lawyer was caught spreading and having sex in front of the camera. Hector Pardes Robles was marked as a “disgrace to the profession” by the judge who conducted the virtual hearing, after documenting the intimate and revealing scene. Watch the incredible documentation from the program “Good Morning Pro”:

A gang of robbers broke into the home of a university lecturer during class That’s how it ended

In the hallucinatory documentation one can see Robles undressing on his chair so that a naked woman can perform sexual acts on him, while the other members of the legal debate are stunned by the situation. Judge John Chhua Torres decided to summon the local police for him, as he said, “We are witnessing indecent acts that represent a blatant violation of public decency, and worse is the fact that they are nationally recorded.” Torres also ordered an investigation.

  • 2021 Elections: All the polls, articles and interpretations of leading reporters on the Maariv website

The bizarre chain of events occurred last Tuesday, during a hearing to extend the detention of a suspect in trafficking, fraud and extortion by threats. At the hearing, held by the court in Pichenko, Robles served as defense counsel for the suspect. In addition, following the incident, the lawyer was barred from any further involvement in the case and was told that he would have to deal with two different entities – the state prosecutor and the local bar association in the city. Peru Supreme Court Statement:

According to reports, the woman who had sex with him was a prostitute, although her identity has not yet been clearly revealed to the media. A statement from Peru’s Supreme Court said: “We condemn the actions of attorney Hector Pardes Robles, who during the hearing committed indecent acts that violated public decency.” The judge in charge of the hearing finally ruled that the lawyer would be replaced and added that the bar association and the local police “would take appropriate action”.

.Source