Meeting of the Qualification Commission

On December 5, 2024, the Qualification Commission of the Samara Region Bar Association held its regular meeting to conclude 2024.

The meeting's agenda included twelve disciplinary proceedings, three of which were initiated based on court filings, one based on a submission from the Samara Region Office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, two based on a submission from the Vice President of the Qualification Commission, and six based on client complaints.

All proceedings were considered on the merits.

In two cases, the Commission concluded that they should be terminated due to the absence of violations in the lawyers' actions. Four disciplinary proceedings were terminated (two due to reconciliation between the lawyer and the complainant, and two due to the courts withdrawing their appeals). In the remaining cases, violations were found in the lawyers' actions.

******

A report from the Kirovsky District Court of Samara indicated that the court was handling criminal proceedings against 12 defendants. Court hearings are held every Thursday starting at 12:00 PM. The court schedule has been communicated to the parties. Attorney A., representing M., was duly notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing. On October 17, 2024, he failed to appear for the court hearing. The court did not provide a reason for his failure to appear. The hearing was adjourned. On October 18, 2024, Attorney A. appeared in court and stated that he had been looking for a lost phone on October 17, 2024, and therefore was unable to contact the court. Given this attorney's previous failure to appear in court hearings without good cause, the court finds that Attorney A. failed to properly perform his professional duties.

These circumstances are confirmed by the minutes of the court hearing of October 17, 2024.

Attorney A. did not submit an explanation to the Commission and did not appear at the Commission hearing.

Having unanimously found the lawyer's actions to constitute a disciplinary offense, the Commission stated that such actions by lawyers are unacceptable, as they undermine respect for the lawyer's work and the legal profession as a whole, discredit the lawyer as a participant in legal proceedings, and cause significant harm to the authority of the legal profession as an institution of civil society.

******

A submission from the Samara Region Office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, citing information received from the Main Investigative Department of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Samara Region, indicates that lawyer K., representing accused Kh., refused to sign the notification protocol of the completion of investigative actions dated August 14, 2024. The defense attorney did not make any comments on the protocol, as confirmed by the attached video recording and a copy of the protocol with the investigator's note regarding the accused and his defense attorney's refusal to sign the protocol.

The submission also states that lawyer K. repeatedly failed to appear for investigative (procedural) actions involving his client without prior notification to the investigator of the existence of valid reasons. Thus, lawyer K., duly notified of the date, time and place of the investigative actions on 11.07.2024, 12.07.2024, 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024, 17.07.2024, 18.07.2024, 29.07.2024, 30.07.2024, 31.07.2024, 01.08.2024, 05.08.2024, 12.08.2024, 13.08.2024, 14.08.2024, 15.08.2024 to participate in the investigative actions, did not appear, did not report any valid reasons for the impossibility of appearing. Furthermore, lawyer K. made inappropriate statements in a telephone conversation with the investigator, stating that he did not intend to appear due to a workload and "was not obligated to report to the thugs in uniform about his work," which was inconsistent with a businesslike manner.

On August 22, 2024, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Samara issued a ruling granting defendant H. and his defense attorney until August 26, 2024, to review the criminal case materials. The lawyer and his client failed to appear within the timeframe set by the court to review the criminal case materials, and they did not provide reasons for their failure to appear.

The complaint also indicates that lawyer K. also engaged in inappropriate behavior toward officials conducting the preliminary investigation of the criminal case.

For example, on May 7, 2024, lawyer K., in the presence of his client, tore up the interrogation report presented by the investigator for signature.

On August 2, 2024, during investigative actions involving Kh., the lawyer began video recording, despite the investigator's express prohibition and the availability of video recording of the investigative action by the investigator.

On August 2, 2024, following client H.'s refusal to sign the order to select a preventive measure, the investigator read the order aloud. During the reading of the order, attorney K. left the investigator's office without permission, explaining that he wanted to "smoke" and that he "allowed" the investigator to continue the investigative action and the reading of the order without his participation. The investigative action was suspended. The attorney's behavior, as recorded in the video footage submitted by the investigator, does not correspond to the required professional conduct.

The applicant believes that attorney K.'s actions indicate a violation of the legal requirements for legal practice and the legal profession.

The attorney provided explanations indicating that he disagrees with the applicant's arguments and presents his own arguments, which, however, do not refute the circumstances presented by the applicant.

The Commission found violations of the law on advocacy and the legal profession, as well as the Standard for Defense in Criminal Proceedings, in the lawyer's actions.

******

Two disciplinary proceedings were initiated at the request of the Vice President of the PASO for the lawyers' failure to comply with the law's requirements for professional development.

Following their review, the Commission concluded that it was necessary to emphasize to lawyers the provisions of paragraph 3, clause 1, article 7 of the Federal Law "On Advocacy and the Bar in the Russian Federation," which requires lawyers to continually improve their knowledge independently and enhance their professional skills in accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Chamber of Advocates of the Russian Federation and the bar associations of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with the Standard for Professional Training and Continuing Professional Development of Lawyers and Interns, approved by the IX All-Russian Congress of Lawyers on April 18, 2019, "the primary objective of training and continuing professional development for lawyers in accordance with the Standard is to ensure continuous and ongoing knowledge improvement as a requirement of the mandatory standard of the legal profession. Lawyers with less than three years of experience must annually complete at least 40 academic hours of continuing professional development, while those with more than three years of experience must complete at least 30 academic hours. Bar associations of constituent entities of the Russian Federation may decide to increase the minimum required number of hours per year for lawyers to complete continuing professional development, but not more than 60 academic hours (clause 13)."

The Commission reminds that a lawyer who fails to constantly improve their professional skills in accordance with the procedure established by the Standard and in accordance with the decision of the council of the Bar Association of the relevant constituent entity of the Russian Federation on matters of professional development may be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the Code of Professional Ethics for Lawyers (paragraph 31).

******

V.'s complaint indicated that lawyer E. was appointed to represent her interests in criminal proceedings during the preliminary investigation. The complainant states that she and E.'s defense attorney reviewed the criminal case materials separately. On September 26, 2024, based on the decision of the Samara District Court of Samara, the complainant was given until October 1, 2024, to review the criminal case materials.

During the court hearing, she learned that as of September 20, 2024, five days after the charges were filed, E.'s lawyer had already reviewed volume 51 of the criminal case file and the full set of physical evidence. According to the applicant, she has not reviewed all of the case materials, and no physical evidence was presented to her. On October 1, 2024, the investigator, in the absence of E.'s defense attorney, drew up a report on reviewing the criminal case materials. The applicant states that she was left without qualified legal assistance when signing the report. She does not know whether E.'s lawyer actually reviewed the criminal case materials or filed any motions.

She believes that the lawyer's inaction violated her right to defense.

E.'s lawyer presented explanations that do not refute the applicant's arguments and indicate that he had previously been fully reviewed the criminal case materials. During the period described by the complainant, the review was restarted due to the criminal case being returned to the investigator, and these were "the same 51 volumes," which the lawyer "saw no point in reviewing again."

As follows from the disciplinary proceedings, the lawyer voluntarily decided to cease participating in the case without providing any explanation to the Commission. The report on the review of the criminal case materials indicates that the complainant participated in the investigation without a defense attorney.

The commission found violations of the lawyer's legislation on advocacy and the legal profession, as well as the Standard for Defense in Criminal Proceedings, in the lawyer's actions.

******

From I.'s complaint against lawyer S., it follows that on August 31, 2023, the applicant's home was searched, after which she was taken to the FSB Directorate for the Samara Region. On September 6, 2023, the investigator introduced her to lawyer S., who did not conduct a confidential conversation with the client but merely presented some documents for signature. Neither the applicant nor her family entered into a legal assistance agreement with lawyer S., nor did he pay any remuneration.

Lawyer S. stated in his explanation that an agreement for legal assistance was concluded between him and the applicant on September 6, 2023, in the FSB building; he was invited by the investigator at the applicant's initiative. The lawyer was familiarized with the criminal case materials, and the investigator provided the opportunity for a confidential conversation with the client. During the conversation, the client was explained the consequences of her decision regarding the merits of the criminal case, which she personally recorded. Investigative actions were conducted with the client in the lawyer's presence, and procedural documents were drawn up. The lawyer did not receive any funds under the agreement with I.

The Commission concluded that there were no legal grounds for lawyer S. to join the case, and that the warrant for lawyer S. to participate in I.'s interrogation was issued without legal grounds and in violation of legal requirements.

******

The Commission's findings have been included in the agenda of the meeting of the Council of the Chamber of Advocates of the Samara Region, which will be held on December 19, 2024.

******

On the eve of the New Year, the Chairman of the Qualification Commission of the PASO, A.V. Kokin, He congratulated his colleagues on the upcoming holiday and wished them peace, goodness, and success in all their endeavors in the coming year!

PASO Press Center