Meeting of the Qualification Commission

On 13.04.2023, the regular meeting of the Qualification Commission of the Chamber of Advocates of the Samara Region was held.

The agenda of the meeting included eight disciplinary proceedings for consideration, two of which were initiated at the request of the court, two - at the request of the Office of the Ministry of Justice for the Samara Region, one - at the request of the Vice President of the PASO, three - based on complaints from clients.

All proceedings were considered on the merits, in two cases the Commission came to the conclusion on the need to terminate disciplinary proceedings due to the absence of violations in the actions of lawyers, one disciplinary proceeding was terminated due to reconciliation between the lawyer and the person who filed the complaint, in the remaining cases, violations were found in the actions of lawyers.

*****

It follows from the appeal of the judge of the Samara Regional Court that he is handling a criminal case against K., in which, in the manner prescribed by Articles 50, 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, lawyer R.R., who accepted the demand, was to participate. The court hearing was scheduled for 11.01.2023 at 14.00, of which lawyer R.R. was notified. Convicted K. was provided with participation in the specified court hearing via videoconference, the prosecutor and the victim S. appeared, however, lawyer R.R. did not appear at the hearing. During a telephone conversation with the secretary of the court hearing, the lawyer confirmed that he accepted the demand to participate in the court hearing on this criminal case, however, he explained the reason for his failure to appear that he “forgot about the court hearing” and therefore cannot appear at the court hearing. The failure of the lawyer to appear was the reason for the postponement of the consideration of the appeal until 18.01.2023. The court hearings on 18.01.2023, 27.01.2023 did not take place due to the failure of the victim to appear, the next court hearing was scheduled for 01.02.2023 at 16:00. At the court hearing on 01.02.2023, lawyer R.R. again did not appear, did not submit documents to the court confirming the validity of the failure to appear. The above, as follows from the appeal, indicates that lawyer R.R. twice disrupted the process due to the increased complexity of the organization, which indicates the lawyer's disrespect for the participants in the criminal proceedings: the convicted person, the victim, the prosecutor and the court.

These circumstances are confirmed by copies of the minutes of the court hearings and telephone messages submitted by the court.

In addition, these circumstances are confirmed by lawyer R.R. himself in the explanations submitted to the Commission.

Similar circumstances are set out in another appeal of the judge of the Samara Regional Court in relation to lawyer R.I., who was appointed to defend the convicted R. in the court of appeal. As follows from the appeal, lawyer R.I., taking part in the court hearing on 02/13/2023, when discussing the date of the next court hearing - on 02/27/2023 at 14:00, did not express any objections regarding the specified date, did not report his availability. At the same time, in the period from 02/14/2023 to 02/22/2023 inclusive, lawyer R.I. appeared at the criminal case office of the Samara Regional Court on weekdays to familiarize himself with the materials of the criminal case, did not inform the court about any “overlays” of judicial jams that he had or had arisen. On 02/27/2023, that is, on the day of the court hearing, at 10:18 a.m., an application was received by email from lawyer R.I. to postpone the court hearing to another date due to the fact that a court hearing was scheduled for 02/27/2023 in the Ulyanovsk District Court, where lawyer R.I. represents the interests of B. by agreement, while the lawyer did not submit any documents confirming his employment at the court hearing. Thus, the court hearing on this criminal case on 27.02.2023, with the full attendance of the other participants in the process (translator, convicted person, prosecutor) and the impossibility of ensuring the participation of another defense attorney in such a short time, was postponed to 17.03.2023 due to the failure to appear of lawyer R.I., duly and in advance notified of the day and time of the case hearing, which entailed adverse consequences for his client, who was in custody, and other participants in the process, as well as a violation of reasonable time limits for the proceedings.

Lawyer R.I. does not deny the circumstances set out in the court's appeal in his explanations.

The Commission found disciplinary offenses in the actions of both lawyers, the members of the Commission instructed the lawyers on the inadmissibility of such actions, since they led to the disruption of court hearings, indicate disrespect for the court and the participants in the process.

******

From the submission of the Department of the Ministry of Justice for the Samara Region regarding lawyer P., it follows that the Department received information from the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for the Kuznetsk District of the UMVD for the Penza Region regarding the lawyer, indicating that the lawyer violated the legislation on advocacy and the bar and (or) the Code of Professional Activities of a Lawyer. Thus, from the content of the appeal it follows that lawyer P., representing the interests of S., a suspect in committing a criminal offense, under an agreement to provide legal assistance, evaded appearing for investigative and other procedural actions involving his client without confirming the validity of the reasons for the impossibility of appearing on the dates specified by the investigator. At the same time, on 16.01.2023, the investigator made six calls to the phone number of P.'s lawyer's office, posted on the official website of PASO, which were left unanswered. In response to a written message in a messenger with a request to contact, the investigator received a response from the lawyer, which not only contained information about the unwillingness to appear for investigative actions involving the client in winter (the author's spelling and punctuation have been preserved): "And you don't need to call me, I won't come to you in winter, suspend the case until April...", "I repeat once again for the stupid, don't wait for me in winter, I'm not going to risk my life on a dangerous road...", then followed an incorrect text containing offensive statements.

On 01/16/2023, the Chamber of Advocates of the Samara Region received an appeal from senior investigator P.N. on assistance in notifying lawyer P. about the planned investigative actions with his participation on 20, 23, 25 January 30, 2023.

On 17.01.2023, this request was sent to lawyer P. by e-mail in the Internet-PASO system with a proposal to immediately agree with the investigator on the time and date of the investigative actions.

On 19.01.2023, lawyer P. notified the Chamber of Advocates that his client was temporarily incapacitated, and that he himself was busy with other matters on the specified dates.

At the same time, lawyer P. did not agree on other dates for the investigative actions with the investigator, and did not submit any documents confirming the impossibility of his appearance on the dates specified by the investigator.

The lawyer did not confirm the specified circumstances in his explanations, indicating that his client was notified of the investigative actions and was notified of the need to appear for them with a great delay due to the fault of the investigator. The dates indicated in both the message and the submission were not agreed upon with the lawyer. He points out that he provided the investigator with a different phone number than the one indicated by the investigator, “and this is her mistake, and I could not answer.” He believes that there are no violations in his actions.

Meanwhile, the lawyer’s arguments regarding the phone number are refuted by the procedural documents submitted to the disciplinary proceedings, drawn up and signed by the lawyer, containing information about the phone number, as well as by the notification of lawyer P. to PASO indicating his work number, used in correspondence with the lawyer by the investigator.

The commission found that the lawyer's actions violated the legislation on advocacy and the Bar and the Code of Professional Activities of a Lawyer, indicating that the lawyer not only refused to appear at the place of the investigative action in the absence of a valid reason, but did so in a rude manner, repeatedly using expressions of a frankly offensive nature, presenting the investigator with knowingly illegal, absurd, in essence, demands to suspend the preliminary investigation.

******

From the complaint of citizen P. it was evident that an agreement was concluded between him and lawyer S., according to the terms of which the lawyer was to familiarize himself with the materials of the case on an administrative offense (road accident), advise the client on how to defend himself in court, and, if necessary, represent the client's interests in court. Lawyer S. familiarized himself with the case and, at a meeting, "announced that I was to blame for the road accident." He advised not to show anyone the video recording of the road accident, since, according to him, it proves the client's guilt. In June 2022, lawyer S. refused to represent the client's interests in court, citing his health condition. However, after the second participant in the accident filed a claim against the complainant, the plaintiff's lawyer S. turned out to be his representative. He believes that the lawyer betrayed the interests of the client by going over to the side of the procedural opponent.

From the explanations of lawyer S., it follows that on March 1, 2022, an agreement was concluded between him and citizen P., the subject of which was familiarization with the administrative material in the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia "Syzranskoye" using a camera and transferring it to citizen P. on a flash drive, which he did. He did not provide consultations to citizen P., since "the subject of the agreement was only copying and transferring to P. a photograph of the administrative material." The circumstances of the accident were not discussed, he did not participate in courts and law enforcement agencies to represent P.'s interests, and did not accept other instructions from P. He believes that he has fulfilled his obligations under the agreement in full.

The commission has established that the lawyer's actions constitute a disciplinary offense. The conclusion established that a lawyer does not have the right to accept an assignment from a person who has applied to him for legal assistance if he provides legal assistance to a client whose interests are contrary to the interests of this person; to disclose information communicated to him by the client in connection with the provision of legal assistance to the latter, without the consent of the client. Such actions of a lawyer are a gross violation of professional duties, since they violate the rights of the client, a former client, give rise to mistrust of the lawyer, and undermine the authority of the bar.

*****

It followed from the complaint of citizen P. that lawyer S. refused to represent his interests in court, he entered into an agreement with lawyer I., who advised him to admit guilt in the offense, stating that in this case a fine would be imposed. Citizen P. followed the advice of lawyer I. and admitted guilt. After reviewing the case materials, the applicant saw that lawyer I. advised admitting guilt without reviewing the case materials (his order is dated the same as the decision on the case, there are no marks about familiarization). The lawyer advised not to inform the court about the video recording from the scene of the accident. Meanwhile, the said video recording made it possible to establish the mutual guilt of the participants in the accident during the consideration of the civil case. Lawyer I. submitted explanations and legal proceedings to the Commission refuting the arguments of the client. Thus, the lawyer indicates that, having concluded an agreement with citizen P. on 20.06.2022 and having received from him photocopies of the case materials on the administrative offense and a video recording from the scene of the incident, as well as a claim for damages, he took part together with the client in a court hearing to consider the case of an administrative offense against P., where, according to a previously agreed position, P. admitted guilt, and he was assigned an administrative penalty in the form of a fine. Later, when considering a civil case on a claim against P. for damages, the court established the mutual guilt of both participants in the accident, and damages were partially recovered from P.

The Commission came to the conclusion that it was necessary to terminate disciplinary proceedings due to the absence of violations in the actions of lawyer I.

*****

After reviewing the disciplinary proceedings, the Qualification Commission considered the issue of admitting 22 applicants to take the qualification exam to acquire the status of a lawyer.

The exam will be held on May 11, 2023.

PASO Press Center