Meeting of the Qualification Commission of the PASO

On February 13, 2025, the Qualification Commission of the Samara Region Bar Association held a regular meeting.

The meeting's agenda included four disciplinary proceedings, one of which was initiated at the request of the Samara Region Office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, and three following complaints from clients.

The issue of admitting applicants to the qualification exam for legal status was considered.

All proceedings were reviewed on their merits.

In one case, the Commission concluded that the disciplinary proceedings should be terminated due to the absence of violations in the lawyer's actions; in the remaining cases, violations were found in the lawyers' actions.

*****

The Samara Region Office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation submitted a submission citing G.'s appeals received from the Leninsky Interdistrict Investigative Department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for the Samara Region, and directly from G. himself, stating that, in providing legal assistance to the applicant under agreements dated October 6, 2024, and October 21, 2024, attorney B. violated the requirements of the legislation on advocacy and the Bar, as well as the Code of Professional Ethics for Attorneys, namely:

- from the content of paragraph 5 of the agreements concluded by attorney B., it follows that "if the assignment stipulated by paragraph 1 of this agreement cannot be fulfilled by legal means, this agreement may be terminated, which shall be formalized by an agreement between the parties on termination of the agreement, in which case the funds transferred to pay for the attorney's services, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this agreement, will not be returned."

- According to paragraph 6 of the agreements, "the principal has the right to cancel the assignment stipulated in paragraph 1 of this agreement at any time by executing a termination agreement, and the funds transferred to pay for the lawyer's services, in accordance with paragraph 3 of this agreement, will not be refunded."

The applicant stated that the inclusion in the legal assistance agreement of provisions limiting the principal's ability to repay funds, regardless of the legal assistance actually provided by the lawyer, contradicts the requirements of Article 25 of the Federal Law "On Advocacy and the Bar in the Russian Federation" and Articles 977 and 978 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Also, in the legal assistance agreements of 06.10.2024 and 21.10.2024, attorney B. included a clause requiring the client to be familiarized with PASO Council Decision No. 15-12-13/SP of 14.12.2015 "On Establishing Minimum Fee Rates for the Provision of Legal Assistance." However, at the time the agreements were concluded, the aforementioned decision of the PASO Council had ceased to be effective.

Furthermore, it follows from the submission that Attorney B. provided unqualified legal advice, failed to fully review the documents submitted by the client, and drafted the legal documents poorly. Specifically, in the application pursuant to Articles 144-145 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, one of the addressees is listed as Vladimir Putin, including as the head of the National Anti-Corruption Committee of the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the addressee of this application is listed as the First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation – Head of the Investigative Committee of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, which is inconsistent with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2010, No. 1182 "Questions of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation," a fact of which the attorney should be aware.

Furthermore, Attorney B.'s website contains evaluative characteristics of the attorney, debased language, and ambiguities that could mislead potential clients or raise unfounded hopes.

The lawyer presented explanations and the legal proceedings, which, however, do not refute the arguments presented in the submission by the Samara Region Office of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation.

The commission found that lawyer B.'s actions violated the laws governing advocacy and the legal profession, namely, Article 25 of the Federal Law "On Advocacy and the Legal Profession in the Russian Federation," the interrelated provisions of paragraph 4 of paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Law on Advocacy, paragraph 6 of Article 15, paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and paragraph 1.3 of the Rules of Conduct for Lawyers on the Internet. The commission also found that the lawyer provided his client with unqualified assistance by choosing unlawful means to protect his client's interests.

******

M.'s complaint indicated that attorney K., retained by the investigator to represent the applicant in the criminal proceedings, provided no legal assistance. The applicant states that attorney K. acted solely in the investigator's interests, failed to provide consultations to his client, failed to explain the consequences of providing false testimony, and failed to coordinate his position. The responses received regarding M.'s statements and complaints indicate that she voluntarily waived the appointment of another defense attorney pursuant to Article 51 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, and that her representation by attorney K. was her own choice. However, neither the applicant nor her relatives entered into an agreement for legal assistance with attorney K.

Attorney K. has provided no explanation or legal proceedings regarding the merits of the complaint filed.

The commission found violations of the law on advocacy and the legal profession, as well as the Standard for Defense in Criminal Proceedings adopted by the VIII All-Russian Congress of Advocates, in both form and content. The commission concluded that there were no legal grounds for attorney K.'s intervention in the case, that the warrant for attorney K.'s participation in the case was issued without legal grounds and in violation of legal requirements, and that such actions constitute a gross violation of professional duties, as they violate the client's rights, foster mistrust of the attorney, and undermine the authority of the legal profession.

******

From the complaint of citizen I., it follows that attorney Yu., who joined the criminal case against I. on November 29, 2024, by appointment of the investigator, was notified by the client at a meeting that he had retained a defense attorney. The defense attorney, I., joined the criminal proceedings on the same day. No investigative or procedural actions involving attorney Y. were conducted. On December 4, 2024, the applicant learned that attorney Y., in the applicant's absence, had signed the suspect's interrogation report, the report of delivery of a copy of the notice of suspicion of committing a crime, the order, and the written undertaking not to leave and to behave properly. All procedural documents were marked by attorney Y.'s signature indicating that his client, I., had refused to sign.

Attorney Y. provided an explanation in which he pointed out the discrepancies between the facts presented by the applicant and the facts. He stated that the applicant had repeatedly told him and the investigator that he would have a lawyer by agreement. However, he refused to provide the lawyer's name and telephone number. The procedural actions were conducted with the participation of the applicant and attorney Yu. After reviewing the suspect's interrogation report, the report of delivery of a copy of the notice of suspicion of committing a crime, the order, and the written undertaking not to leave the area and to comply with proper conduct, which was recorded.

The Commission found that attorney Yu.'s actions violated the law on advocacy and the legal profession, the Standard for the Defense of Attorneys in Criminal Proceedings adopted by the VIII All-Russian Congress of Advocates, and Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which prohibits the intervention of an appointed attorney within 24 hours if there is information about an agreement with the chosen attorney.

******

The Commission unanimously voted to admit twenty-seven applicants for status to the qualification exam.

******

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 February 27, 2025.

PASO Press Center