All news
Lawyers tell of their terrible situation: bribed, humiliated, imprisoned
“Man cannot live without God, the state without law, the law without execution, the strong without duties, the weak without rights, freedom without restrictions, man without a soul, and the court without mercy.”
The meeting of the Council of the Federal Chamber of Advocates, which preceded the conference in St. Petersburg, began with a discussion of Elman Pashayev. And we should probably thank Providence for such a character, because it allowed the lawyers to decide how they see their profession, themselves and their colleagues.
“We walked the red line: if Elman Pashayev had managed to pass the exams, it is hard to imagine what they would have said about the bar,” said Svetlana Volodina, president of the FPA, immediately after the greeting at the Council, which was held in the Ministry of Justice of St. Petersburg.
Characters with a dubious reputation are a serious problem for the modern legal profession. According to Volodina's report, in 2024, there were cases in almost every region where lawyers were brought to criminal liability. The most common article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is Article 159 "Fraud". As an example, they told how in the Tambov Region, a defense attorney asked for 350 thousand rubles to mitigate the qualification, in the Kemerovo Region - 500 thousand for a negative medical examination, in the Oryol Region - more than a million for facilitating the adoption of the necessary decision on a criminal case, in the Chelyabinsk Region - 10 thousand euros for a sentence not related to actual imprisonment... In many such situations, the lawyer promised to transfer part of the amount to law enforcement officers, prosecutors or judges. So to speak, "to resolve the issue." In fact, he kept all the money for himself. Among the "records" of this year: in Moscow, a group of lawyers defrauded 470 citizens of 41 million rubles, in Udmurtia, one defense attorney "cheated" his client of 19 million. The average sentences for fraudulent lawyers this year ranged from 4 to 9 years, but these are all cases where large sums are involved (from half a million rubles). Against this background, the sentence of 3 years of imprisonment received by a lawyer in Buryatia for taking 46 thousand rubles from a client and spending them on his own needs seems too harsh.
One curious case: in the Tyumen region, a criminal partnership of "investigator - appointed lawyer" was exposed. The former called the latter to all his cases, and the latter took money for providing legal assistance, which was provided free of charge. The amount of damage from the "work" of this pair was 5 million rubles.
The defenders who have really succumbed to temptation do not apply to the commissions for the protection of the rights of lawyers, but on the contrary, try to hide the fact of their criminal prosecution. But the first vice-president of the FPA, Genri Reznik, spoke separately about those who do apply.
- On the other hand, we have encountered the fact that ill-wishers artificially create things. We can talk about a whole trend that has formed in recent years towards the unfair application of the provisions of the Criminal Code to lawyers. 303 "Falsification of evidence in criminal cases", Art. 294 "Interference in the activities of courts for the purpose of obstructing the administration of justice", Art. 310 "Disclosure of preliminary investigation data", Art. 159 "Fraud" (this means criminal liability for honestly received fees).
Reznik spoke about four landmark cases (which he said would outrage the legal profession and set a precedent for negative judicial practice):
The first is the case of lawyer Alexander Lebedev, who was charged under Part 3 of Art. 303 of the Criminal Code - "Falsification of evidence", which was later re-certified as Part 1 of Art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Obstruction of justice and conducting a preliminary investigation". His whole "guilt" was that he submitted to the court a certificate of his client's stay in a medical institution. The investigation showed that the woman was not there. The lawyer disputed this, but in any case he proceeded on the premise of trust in his client. Without going into details, we note that the court completely acquitted the lawyer.
The second is the case of lawyer Irina Savelyeva. In 2020, a lawyer from Ulyanovsk was charged with disclosing investigative secrets (Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as a result of which she began to cooperate with experts. According to the investigation, these actions "disseminated confidential information related to secrets protected by law, affecting, among other things, the interests of two witnesses who were questioned." The court found Irina not guilty, but this decision was challenged. As a result, the case was dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
The third is the case of Diana Tsypinova. The girl was charged in 2020 with violence against a police officer (Article 318, Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In fact, he took an obscene liberty by pushing her out of the police station where she came to protect her client (he pressed her with different parts of the body). The Urvansky District Court of Kabardino-Balkaria acquitted Diana Tsypinova. But! Diana's acquittal was overturned by the cassation court.
“I think this case is a challenge to the honor and dignity of white people’s profession,” Reznick said, adding that he hopes the KBR Supreme Court will end the story.
The fourth is the case of Vladimir Buzyurgin, who was charged with leaking investigative secrets. The trick is that he did this at a stage when he was already sentenced (his client was acquitted by the jury). That is what makes this case unique.
— Disclosure of preliminary investigation data beyond the preliminary investigation stage is, excuse me, downright bad! — Reznik is indignant. — They have power (he meant law enforcement officers). But in our country, power is law. For this reason, only an acquittal for the lawyer can satisfy us. We cannot allow such a precedent to be created.
Reznik reported that a draft of methodological recommendations on the issue of calling a lawyer for questioning is being prepared.
As a final note, Genry Markovich told about a case where, in his opinion, the legal community should intervene. The lawyer was handling a case about the demolition of a building where a veterinary clinic is located. She happened to be near the building and saw the judge who was hearing the case come out of it. It turns out that she was treating her dog there. The lawyer took a photo of it and announced it at the trial. The judge recused herself. But a criminal case for interference in private life was opened against the lawyer! That's not all. The lawyer did not come to the hearing because she had COVID (she provided a certificate about it). She was given a preventive measure in the form of detention. Not bad, right?!
Reznik concludes: "Nobody needs a servile, frightened legal profession. The state doesn't need it. And the people don't need it."
Cases of lawyers not being allowed to see clients and attacks on defenders have increased in recent years. That is why a bill on criminal liability for obstructing lawyers' activities (similar to the one that exists for obstructing journalists' activities) was recently developed. But government agencies sent a negative response to it...
Without knowing history, one cannot understand the present. That is why the scientific conference in honor of the 160th anniversary of judicial reform began with the opening of an exhibition at the Russian State Historical Museum (St. Petersburg). Original documents were retrieved from the archives, the main one being the decree of Alexander II of November 20, 1864 on the establishment of new judicial institutions within the framework of judicial reform. In fact, this is how the institute of attorneys-at-law (lawyers) appeared.
"Let truth and mercy reign in the courts" - this phrase of the young emperor is known to every lawyer. And it was the lawyers, according to the ruler's idea, who were supposed to help transform Themis. But not everything was simple. The legal system in the country was just being formed, and the authorities often violated their own laws. The lawyers pointed this out, becoming, in fact, oppositionists.
"The fashionable issue is to attack the legal profession," magazines wrote in 1886. The society that had warmly welcomed the advocacy soon began to criticize it. And yet the legal profession held out and gradually won back space. The Emperor lifted the ban on accepting Muslims, Jews, and Old Believers as sworn attorneys. But women were not allowed into the legal profession until 1917 (in 1909, 100 members of the State Duma introduced a bill "On Granting the Right to Females to Be Sworn Attorneys," which was not adopted for a long time).
So, from the documents presented for the anniversary: a note to the Minister of Justice Panin about the need to establish a bar class in Russia (October 9, 1864), the charter of the college, where future sworn lawyers began to be trained, a letter from the Minister of Public Education permitting a trip to England and France to study the legal procedures of these countries ... There are lists of sworn lawyers on important cases of the Russian Empire, as well as the criminal cases themselves (most of them are cases of embezzlement). The relics include a police report on a duel between a lawyer and a deputy, as well as a case on the attempted murder of a lawyer. Scientists consider the preserved results of almost the first investigation of criminal cases to be a real treasure. By the way, we owe the appearance of some of them to works of art (for example, in the case of Abbess Mitrophania, the graphological investigation of 1874 became the basis for the plot of Ostrovsky's play "Wolves and Sheep").
From the archives they pulled out the profile of Fyodor Plevako, a genius who raised the bar of the legal profession to unattainable heights, and whose speeches became a moral guideline (as the famous one said: “Do not judge with hatred, judge with love, if you want the truth”).
The characteristic cards for candidates for the bar and already members of the Bar Council, compiled by the lawyer Boris Nikolsky in 1910, may seem amusing to a modern person. For example, he wrote: “He is completely unfit for the Bar Council, because his life is blocked.” He explained to another: “He is extremely nervous, talking to himself, not to an ordinary person. But despite this, he is a very gifted orator in criminal cases and has the ability to understand confusing civil relations.” The national theme would have been relevant to the legal profession, as would the lawyer’s political views. Thus, he wrote of one of his lawyers: “He is a Jew, not a Jew by nature. He is smart, honest, noble, kind, a good comrade.” He wrote to another: “A lawyer with an old reputation. Proud, but Russian at heart.”
Lawyers rarely demanded stricter laws, but there was at least one precedent. Lawyer Brovkin asked Kerensky, the Minister of Justice of the Provisional Government, to introduce criminal liability for immorality. He told this story based on a very personal story. His elderly father abandoned his children and had an affair with a young woman. “I am ashamed to look into the eyes of honest people who point their fingers at me, grin in my face, and say, ‘He is a lawyer,’ but can do nothing about it.”
During the revolution, lawyers had a hard time. (When asked how revolutionary justice differs from just justice, legendary lawyer Henry Resnik once replied: “As the difference between an electric chair and a simple chair.”) The Soviet government viewed them as enemies.
“The legal profession was declared a counterrevolutionary class,” says Reznik. “There was a reason for this: the lawyers (who courageously defended populists, socialists, and terrorists in court) did not accept the October Revolution. The reason for this is simple: the revolution destroyed the legal system. The first decree of the People’s Power destroyed all tsarist justice. Interestingly, this decree No. 1 allowed the restoration of courts and prosecutors’ offices on the basis of revolutionary legal consciousness. There was no mention of lawyers at all.
But the legal profession survived and respected itself. And thanks to the same Reznik (he presented a report on the 125th anniversary of the profession at the Enlarged Congress of the Union of Lawyers of the USSR in 1989), the speeches of the legendary lawyer were published.
"Both the witness stand and the defense can lie."
Lawyers described the problems and solutions that exist in legal proceedings today. And here, frankly, there were very subtle topics. One of the main ones is the attempts of officials to devalue the activities of lawyers and reduce them to the level of investigative services. Deputy Chairman of the FPA RF Evgeny Semenyakov (chairman in the early 2000s) proposed an effective remedy for this "disease" - to remind the sovereign that legal assistance may be needed.
— In one of our parliaments there was a person involved in the famous State Emergency Committee case, the former chairman of the Soviet government, Mr. Pavlov. He said. He thanked the defenders for achieving such a result (Pavlov was released). And in the end he said that it was only there that he realized that there was one representative of the entire judicial and law enforcement system on his side, and this is a lawyer. He also said that when he brought a pack of cigarettes from the detention center, it was never in good condition, it was all broken. And when I asked who had such a ridiculous idea, he heard the following answer: "We have a directive signed by Comrade Pavlov, a representative of the government."
The second problem is when some in society (at the direction of law enforcement) begin to perceive lawyers as accomplices of criminals. Lawyers begin to associate themselves with the people they represent, and in some cases, even receive threats. One example: threats against lawyers who were selected by lottery to represent the interests of the terrorists who killed dozens of people at the Crocus City Hall concert hall.
Some lawyers who attended the meeting urged not to upset those who decide the fate of their clients. “There is a good expression that the punishment is not passed on to us, but to the client. Therefore, you should think carefully before cutting with a saber. Well, I did everything, I fought with the prosecutor and even the judge to acquit or help my client. But in the end, they gave him the maximum. Of course, this requires fine-tuning and a delicate approach.”
Situations are especially difficult from both a professional and moral point of view when a defendant tells a lawyer that he has reached some kind of agreement with the investigator or prosecutor. This is a very difficult situation for professional lawyers, and each of them decides for themselves what to do. Genri Reznik recalled the "Uzbek" case, when the regional committee secretary was accused of taking bribes.
— The First Deputy Prosecutor General supports the prosecution in the first instance in the Supreme Court. The accused refused to admit to receiving one of the bribes. He was defended by a very famous lawyer, a war veteran. He calls me: “I want to consult with you. The prosecutor told me that if the accused returns to his previous testimony, he will not ask for the death penalty. Can I believe him?” I answered: “He is a war veteran, you are a war veteran. Nobody considered him a bastard. But it is up to you to make the decision.” And the lawyer tells his client: I think you need to return to your previous testimony. He returns. The prosecutor does not ask for the death penalty. They sentenced him to 13 years. And so I call this lawyer, his wife picks up the phone and says that he has had a heart attack. That’s the price.
One of the speakers raised the topic of self-incrimination, which he divided into three types. The first is intentional, when a person wants to protect another, covering for him with himself (the famous film "Station for Two" tells this sad story very well). The second option is forced, under pressure either from the true perpetrators of the crime (through intimidation, blackmail) or from law enforcement agencies. And finally, the third option is when a person, due to his professional ignorance, ignorance, so to speak, of legal subtleties, believes that he is guilty, although there is no crime in his actions.
"We must not forget about the wishes and interests of our clients. But there are exceptional cases when we can deviate from the position of our clients." And then they remembered the case when the defense attorney filed a complaint to the Constitutional Court, and the client was against it. In the end, it had to be withdrawn.
The fourth problem is a careless attitude towards attorney-client privilege. "We see this happening in the heat of passion, when two colleagues discuss certain events on the Internet where there is attorney-client privilege. This all leads to the undermining of trust in the lawyer and, unfortunately, in the legal profession as a whole."
Unfortunately, there are also cases when lawyers have told about what they learned during a confidential relationship with a former client, and have become some kind of assistants to the state prosecution.
Not all lawyers can be critical of their work. And it often happens that a lawyer takes on a case that he would not have the right to take on due to his incompetence. It is clear that it is impossible to know everything. "Therefore, you need to measure your capabilities and in no case take on cases that you do not understand," they summed up at the conference.
Sixth, it is necessary to expand the jury. Recall that the jury was returned as part of the 1993 judicial reform for all crimes for which the punishment exceeds 10 years. What happened next? It reduces the jury's jurisdiction.
Lawyers believe that they need to bring back at least ordinary criminal cases on charges of bribery, rape, robbery, etc.
"This needs to be done because in specialized courts everywhere, even in the most developed countries, the initial attitude of judges is to accusations, not to acquittals," says Reznik. - The President has been given instructions on this matter. The pandemic has prevented its implementation.
Lawyers also cited inequalities in the participation of experts in court cases, a problem that could have been addressed by a bill drafted by the Supreme Court, but which was not adopted.
Fyodor Plevako said two important phrases: "Leave death to sin, and life to sinners!" And "legislators know that compliance with the standards of the law sometimes means disregarding the law and openly committing illegal actions." If suddenly there are no brave and honest lawyers left, who will repeat this in court?