PASO Council meeting

On August 18, a regular meeting of the PASO Council took place.

One of the main issues of the discussion was the summing up of the preparations for the Volga region forum of young lawyers, which will be held on August 23-25.

The Chamber of Lawyers of the Samara Region will receive 112 young lawyers from 39 regional chambers of lawyers in Russia. The Forum will be attended by President of the Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation Yu.S. Pilipenko, Vice-President of the FPA RF S.I. Volodina, Executive Director of the FPA RF O.E. Sergeyev.

The event will take place at the Ice Palace of Sports.

On August 25, 150 Samara lawyers registered to participate in the intellectual part of the forum.

The Council regretfully terminated the status of lawyer Tyurin A.V. in connection with death. Andrey Vyacheslavovich in different years was a member of the Council and the Audit Commission of the PASO, he had great experience and authority among his colleagues. His sudden departure was a great loss.

Two lawyers applied to the PASO Board for professional development hours credit, six for inclusion in the LA system. All applications were granted. The lawyers notified the Council of the establishment of two new collegiums.

The Council considered twenty-three disciplinary proceedings.

One was initiated at the request of the Department of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for the Samara Region. However, the performance was withdrawn and production was discontinued. Three more were initiated at the request of the judges, who were also recalled, and the proceedings were terminated. Two proceedings were terminated due to the reconciliation of lawyers and principals. The other two - due to the fact that the Qualification Commission established the absence of violations in the lawyer's actions. One proceeding was returned to the Commission for a new trial in accordance with paragraphs. 5 p. 1 art. 25 of the KPEA, since at the meeting of the Council it turned out that the Qualification Commission incorrectly established the actual circumstances.

In the rest of the proceedings, disciplinary sanctions were imposed on lawyers (the names of the participants have been changed).

In the first case, lawyer Petrov entered into an agreement with the principal Silantiev to familiarize himself with the verdict, the appeal ruling, as well as all the materials of the criminal case against the convicted Shaposhnikov. When Shaposhnikov found out about this, he filed a complaint against the lawyer, indicating that he did not know Silantyev. Shaposhnikov did not know that the lawyer got acquainted with the materials of his case until the information appeared in another criminal case, where Shaposhnikov is the victim. The applicant believed that the lawyer had done so in the interests of his procedural opponents. According to him, after filing a complaint, the lawyer Petrov got in touch and said that he had entered into an agreement with Silantyev, believing that he was a relative of Shaposhnikov. In the hands of the complainant was a copy of the agreement with Silantyev and documents confirming the payment of the fee under the agreement to the cash desk of the lawyer education. He claimed to have received them from a lawyer. The lawyer himself submitted to the Qualification Commission a copy of the agreement with Shaposhnikov himself. The original agreement and lawyer's dossier were not presented.

Under such circumstances, the Qualification Commission saw in the lawyer's actions the composition of a disciplinary offense. The Council agreed with the conclusion of the Commission and considered that in this case the lawyer intervened and acted contrary to the interests of the principal. The lawyer was given a warning to terminate his status.

In another proceeding, lawyer Titov entered into an agreement with citizen Sergeev for defense at the preliminary investigation, in court and at the appellate instance with a monthly payment. The cashier received a fee for three months of work. During the preliminary investigation, the lawyer took an active position, filed numerous petitions, and participated in investigative actions. At the same time, during the investigation, and then even after the case was sent to court, the proceedings were constantly suspended due to illnesses of the principal and the lawyer. After the lawyer opened another sick leave, Sergeyev was assigned a lawyer by appointment. After leaving the hospital, the lawyer did not appear at the hearing due to participation in another process. The verdict took place with a lawyer by appointment. Titov filed an appeal, but did not appear at the meeting - the complaint was supported by a lawyer on demand.

After the verdict came into force, Titov sent a claim to the principal demanding payment for the work on the case for all months, including the time of illness of the lawyer and the principal, as well as the time the lawyer was assigned. Sergeev did not respond to the claim, the lawyer filed a claim for the recovery of the fee to the court. After Titov filed a lawsuit, Sergeev filed a complaint about the unqualified provision of legal assistance to PASO.

The Qualification Commission saw in the actions of the lawyer violations in the form of providing unqualified assistance, improper performance of duties to the principal, expressed in failure to appear at meetings without a good reason, and due to filing a claim against the principal for all periods, including those when he did not work on the case .

The PASO Council agreed with the Commission in part, announced a reprimand to the lawyer for not appearing in court sessions due to participation in other processes, for taking a position that differs from the position of the principal.

At the same time, the Council excluded from the composition of the disciplinary offense the actions to recover the unearned fee. Filing a claim for the recovery of fees is a right in which a lawyer cannot be limited. The resolution of this issue is within the competence of the court, is considered in civil proceedings and is not within the powers of the bodies of lawyer self-government.

Two more proceedings were initiated on the appeal of the court against lawyers in the same case. In the course of work, one of them developed a “tense” relationship with the court. PASO repeatedly received reports from the court about the lateness of a lawyer, failure to appear in the process without good reason. In case of failure to appear at the hearing due to illness, the defender did not notify the court in advance, which led to disruption of the court hearings. All these facts were established by the Qualification Commission. The climax was the meeting scheduled for Friday. At 5:00 pm, the lawyer filed a motion to adjourn the court session due to the fact that working hours were over. The court refused to satisfy the petition and decided to continue the session. After that, the lawyer stated that he and his colleague “get up and leave contrary to the order of the court.” The appeal of the court contained the protocol of the meeting, which details the verbal skirmish between the lawyer and the judge, as a result of which both defense lawyers left the courtroom in unison. The Qualification Commission established the composition of a disciplinary offense in the actions of a lawyer, expressed in the manifestation of a clear contempt of court.

The PASO Council has clarified many times that a lawyer cannot leave the courtroom without the permission of the court under any circumstances. Neither the situation of "double protection", nor the protest against the violation of the rights of the client and the lawyer, nor employment in another process - no circumstances give the lawyer the right to get up, leave and leave the principal without protection. At the disposal of the defense counsel there is an arsenal of means to combat violations of the rights of the principal - filing motions, objections to the actions of the presiding judge, comments on the protocol, appealing individual judicial acts, a complaint to the Chairman of the Court, and finally to the Qualification Board of Judges. But the right to leave a principal without protection is not provided for a lawyer either in the CEA, or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, or in other regulatory acts.

To top it off, the lawyer presented an agreement with the principal for defense in the court of first instance, signed before joining the case, and an additional agreement to it, dated a week before the incident. In accordance with this additional agreement, the powers of the lawyer to defend the principal in the criminal case were terminated on the day of this meeting at 17:00. This is extra. agreement lawyer sent to the court instead of an apology.

To top it off, the lawyer presented an agreement with the principal for defense in the court of first instance, signed before joining the case, and an additional agreement to it, dated a week before the incident. In accordance with this additional agreement, the powers of the lawyer to defend the principal in the criminal case were terminated on the day of this meeting at 17:00. This is extra. agreement lawyer sent to the court instead of an apology.

The PASO Council unanimously assessed this document as a clumsy attempt to defend itself in disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, having drawn it up, the lawyer committed another, no less serious violation of the KPEA - he included an illegal, insignificant clause in the agreement, suggesting the lawyer’s refusal to defend himself. Fortunately for the lawyer, this document was not the subject of a court appeal and, as a result, was not evaluated by the Qualification Commission and the PASO Council. As a measure of disciplinary responsibility, a warning about the termination of status was assigned.

The second lawyer, who left the meeting with his colleague, realizing the illegality of his behavior, apologized to the court, the court withdrew the appeal, and the disciplinary proceedings were terminated.

Eleven proceedings were initiated on the proposal of the Department of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for the Samara Region against lawyers who at various times terminated their membership in the PASO and did not join other chambers of lawyers of the Russian Federation. According to Art. 15 of the Federal Law “On advocacy and advocacy in the Russian Federation”, a lawyer who has made a decision to change membership in the bar association of one subject to another, notifies the council of the bar association of the subject of the Russian Federation, of which he is a member, by registered letter. In accordance with the Procedure for a lawyer to change membership in the bar association of one constituent entity of the Russian Federation for membership in the bar association of another constituent entity of the Russian Federation, approved by the FPA Council on April 2, 2010, changing membership in the bar association, that is, exclusion from one Chamber and admission to another, is a single procedure. According to paragraph 5 of this Procedure, a lawyer, within a month from the date of exclusion of information about him from the regional register of lawyers, is obliged to notify the council of the bar association of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation, of which he intends to become a member, by registered mail or personal statement.

Lawyers, against whom representations of the Ministry of Justice were made, on the basis of personal statements, were expelled from the membership of the PASO many years ago, however, they did not join the members of other regional chambers. Thus, they violated the requirements of federal law. In this regard, the PASO Council decided to terminate their status from the moment of the expiration of the one-month period established by the FPA for sending a notification of the desire to become a member of another regional chamber.

PASO Press Center